North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: good grief (RE: IPv4HT - Re: Usage of IPv6 flow label)

  • From: JIM FLEMING
  • Date: Tue Nov 21 13:38:11 2000

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 <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
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
customers,
> 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
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 <[email protected]> -wk, <[email protected]> -hm
> Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA,
U.S.
> "I speak for myself only."
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> > JIM FLEMING
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 12:46 PM
> > To: 'Alex Conta'; 'Jim Bound'; [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; '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 ..]
>
>
>
>