Subject: RE: Usage of IPv6 flow label

From: "Thomas Eklund" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:27:04 +0100

> In my opinion, the IPv4 TOS should also be "e-2-e"...
> ...clients should set it....routers should leave it alone....

IPv4 ToS or IPv6 Traffic Class field is 8 bits and today most routers use 6
bits for them for diffserv (DSCP) and then it is per defintion PER hop
behaviour and having possibility to re-write it at ingrees/egress router to
your domain
..

-- thomas

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:45:36 -0600

Thank you for your comment. In my opinion, there is a difference between a
"service" and a bunch of routers,
which may be in service or not. If the NANOG people want to focus on the
"service" of having an end-to-end
network with SIMPLE IPv4 (i.e. TOS not changed in transit)**, then they
should be able to point out to people
which companies (deploying the service, not building routers), abide by the
policy of allowing a user to insert
any 8 bit value into the IPv4 TOS field, and have that same value emerge on
the other side of the cloud that
NANOG claims to collectively "operate".

Furthermore, I would think that companies engaged in deploying the "service"
would want to make sure they
point out to their customers that they provide, true, end-to-end, IPv4 IP
Header Transport [IPv4HT].
(let's leave TCP and UDP out of this). I would also think that companies NOT
providing this service would
realize that there may be no motivation for those companies that do provide
the service to deal with the
headaches that non-conforming companies create. In short, they should stop
routing to them. Also, I would
think that the sales people from companies that DO provide IPv4HT, would
want to point out to the current
customers of those companies who do not, that they are using a NotWork, as
opposed to a NetWork.
As a service to the community, NANOG can easily run some tests to see which
companies provide IP4HT
and which do not. I have been personally surprised that some large
companies, do not even know what their
global policy is.

As an aside, one could consider other fields of data communications, and
consider what would happen if
people walked up after the fact and "re-wrote the rules". Most people are
probably familiar with 8-bit PCM
voice streams, imagine an end-to-end "service" where for years people were
able to get a clear-channel
8-bit PCM stream. Imagine, that everything worked fine, they place a 5 in
one end and a 5 comes out the
other end, they place the next sample, a 67 in one end and a 67 comes out
the other. Now, imagine some
equipment that comes along and randomly changes the 5 to a 6 or a 4, and the
67 to a 68 or a 66. Imagine
what would happen if people had built software assuming a 5 in one end comes
out a 5 at the other, not a 6
or a 4. Don't you think that network operators would come together and
collectively realize that they have
a major mess on their hands if they continue to change the values of the
data stream that the CUSTOMER
was told will be delivered, end-to-end, with a best effort, and not be
changed from what the customer
supplied ?

There are not really that many bits in an IPv4 header. In my opinion,
companies should FIRST focus on
making sure they have a global cloud that can reliably transport the bits in
the IPv4 header from "end-to-end".
I think it is up to technologists to make sure that sales people know that
they need to inform their customers
that they provide IPv4HT, and if that differentiates them from another
company that changes the customer's
bits in transit, then so be it. At some point, it seems to me that we should
be able to identify a collection of
vendors who provide IPv4HT. For people that want IPv4HT service, I can not
imagine why they would not
want to use those vendors. Why by a "service" from companies who do not
provide the service ?

**  [Yes, folks...I know TTL and checksum change, please do not send me
private mail describing
your recent "ta-da" revelation, that those fields "change".]

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: Thomas Eklund <[email-masked]>
To: 'JIM FLEMING' <[email-masked]>; 'Jim Bound' <[email-masked]>;
'Alex Conta' <[email-masked]>
Cc: 'Steve Deering' <[email-masked]>; 'Michael Thomas' <[email-masked]>;
'Francis Dupont' <[email-masked]>; 'Jun-ichiro itojun
Hagino' <[email-masked]>; 'Hesham Soliman (EPA)'
<[email-masked]>; 'Metzler Jochen'
<[email-masked]>; 'Ipng (E-Mail)' <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: Usage of IPv6 flow label

---

From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:29:26 -0600

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

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

---

From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:41:37 -0600

I have not found 800 numbers to be very helpful when it comes to policies.
Wayne may be a better person to ask.

CEO: F. Wayne Ackerman
Industry:  Telecommunications
Headquarters: 1155 Peachtree St. NE
| Atlanta, GA. 30367
Telephone: 404-249-2000
Web Site: www.bellsouth.com
Employees: -
Stock Symbol BLS (Investment Profile)

Jim Fleming

----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Kuhtz <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 12:36 PM
Subject: RE: good grief (RE: IPv4HT - Re: Usage of IPv6 flow label)

>
>
> Read the sig, Jim.
>
> For all other product related questions, call 1-800-4-DOTNET.
>
> --
U.S.
> > From: JIM FLEMING [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 1:29 PM
> > To: Christian Kuhtz; [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: good grief (RE: IPv4HT - Re: Usage of IPv6 flow label)
> >
> >
> > Thanks....
> >

---

From: "Christian Kuhtz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:11:57 -0500

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.

meet the guarantees it may have contracts signed for unless it did so.  And at

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?

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-masked]> -wk, <[email-masked]> -hm
Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S.
"I speak for myself only."

[.. noise removed ..]

---

From: "Christian Kuhtz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:36:17 -0500

Read the sig, Jim.

[.. noise removed ..]