Thanks.... Just so we are clear, are you saying that it is a global Bell South policy NOT to provide (clear-channel) (end-to-end) IPv4 TOS field transport ? ...IPv4HT OR....are you saying that Bell South does provide IPv4HT, but a special service order is required ?...and additional costs ? Lastly, if we look at the tiny, 32-bit, legacy IPv4 address space, can we identify blocks (ranges) of addresses which Bell South uses to provide IPv4HT ? ...if people routing IPv4HT traffic to Bell South, only route based on those blocks, will that be OK ?... Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp ----- Original Message ----- From: Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> To: <nanog@nanog.org> Cc: <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 12:11 PM Subject: good grief (RE: IPv4HT - Re: Usage of IPv6 flow label)
Jim,
SP's use the IP ToS Precendence bits for marking traffic from their
and treating it appropriately inside their cores. As such, IP ToS Precendence may and will be overwritten unless you have special arrangements with that SP as specified by your contract. More than likely, you'll be required to have both ends of the path (where you care that IP ToS Precendence be
customers, preserved) on
the same SP cloud.
Of an SP uses IP ToS Precendence to mark traffic so that it can be queued properly, it must rewrite/policy IP ToS Precendence. In fact, it couldn't meet the guarantees it may have contracts signed for unless it did so. And at that point, your claims go out the window unless you have such a contract. Tough luck. Can we move on now?
At that point, you probably are a prime candidate for a VPN anyway. If you for some crazy reason rely on IP ToS Precendence arriving the way you sent them, use a VPN. And if you don't like that policy, use a VPN. Use a VPN. And use a VPN. And you should still use a VPN. VPN, 'k?
That's the IPv4 reality. Tough cookies. Old news.
IMHO, anyone (that does include you, Jim) *relying* on IP ToS Precendence to go anywhere unchanged -- without having made special provisions for it -- needs to get their head checked. And, to trust IP ToS Precendence outside a controlled environment is just as insane.
PS: Quit addressing me as 'NANOG people'. And NANOG operates or ownes *zip* in that regard. And please keep the Cc: list down. Thanks. Good grief, Jim, you can't be serious, can you? Although, that straight jacket does look quite fashionable, I must admit.
PPS: Alright, so, this was a flame. Sorry if innocent bystanders were hurt. ;-)
-- Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S. "I speak for myself only."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of JIM FLEMING Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 12:46 PM To: 'Alex Conta'; 'Jim Bound'; thomas.eklund@xelerated.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org; bound@zk3.dec.com; 'Ipng (E-Mail)'; 'Metzler Jochen'; 'Hesham Soliman (EPA)'; 'Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino'; 'Francis Dupont'; 'Michael Thomas'; 'Steve Deering' Subject: IPv4HT - Re: Usage of IPv6 flow label
[.. noise removed ..]