Re: RE: Experimental RFC to be:draft-stoica-diffserv-dps-01.txt

[istoica@EECS.Berkeley.EDU]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 6:36 am
Subject: RE: Experimental RFC to be: draft-stoica-diffserv-dps-01.txt

> I checked with my co-Ad for the sub-ip area.
> We doubt that IETF would accept such a solution.

Are you refering to the solution that proposes an 
extension to MPLS? Thanks,

Ion
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ion Stoica [mailto:istoica@cs.berkeley.edu]
> > Sent: woensdag 12 februari 2003 0:40
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Thomas Narten; Jacqueline Hargest; RFC Editor; iesg@ietf.org;
> > hzhang@cs.cmu.edu; venkitar@labs.mot.com; jayanth@labs.mot.com
> > Subject: Re: Experimental RFC to be: draft-stoica-diffserv-dps-
> 01.txt> 
> > 
> > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > > 2) use a label between layer 2 and layer 3 (like or
> > > > > > > in conjunction with MPLS)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But then this is all happening below IP, and doesn't need
> > > > > > to include modifying the IP header. Right?
> > > >
> > > > > That's correct. Would this be ok?
> > > >
> > > > If it's all invisible to IP, fine with me. You are now no longer
> > > > modifying IP.
> > > >
> > > But now maybe you start to step on MPLS toes?
> > > So we may need to check what it means there if you go that route.
> > >
> > > Bert
> > 
> > Well then there is always the possibility to define our
> > own fixed size label between the IP hader and eventually
> > the MPLS header. Would that be acceptable? The reason
> > we suggested to use MPLS was just to leverage an existing
> > technology.
> > 
> > Ion
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>