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)

  • Date: Tue Nov 21 13:38:11 2000


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 ?

OR....are you saying that Bell South does provide IPv4HT, but a special
order is required ?...and additional costs ?

Lastly, if we look at the tiny, 32-bit, legacy IPv4 address space, can we
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

----- 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
> and treating it appropriately inside their cores.  As such, IP ToS
> may and will be overwritten unless you have special arrangements with that
> as specified by your contract.   More than likely, you'll be required to
> 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
> 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
> 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
> go anywhere unchanged -- without having made special provisions for it --
> needs to get their head checked.  And, to trust IP ToS Precendence outside
> controlled environment is just as insane.
> PS: Quit addressing me as 'NANOG people'.  And NANOG operates or ownes
> in that regard.  And please keep the Cc: list down.  Thanks.  Good grief,
> you can't be serious, can you?  Although, that straight jacket does look
> fashionable, I must admit.
> PPS: Alright, so, this was a flame.  Sorry if innocent bystanders were
> ;-)
> --
> Christian Kuhtz <[email protected]> -wk, <[email protected]> -hm
> Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture,, Atlanta, GA,
> "I speak for myself only."
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> > 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 ..]