Since the CMTS is not the originating node it can not modify the flow label
field, so do not look there. This sounds exactly like the case that the
routing header was created for, but for some reason people consistently
refuse to look there ...
I agree there needs to be some thought about a standardized way to handle
the problem and would like to continue this discussion off list for now.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Francois Menard
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:19 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Need for an open access IPv6 working group at the IETF
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In 1999 you asked my predecessor's predecessor:
I wonder if we should not have a new working group within the IETF that
would issue informational RFC's on the topics of equal access
using Internet Protocol technologies.
Well, I'm quite sure the answer is no. That is a business model, policy
and
governance question, and these are not areas within the IETF's mission.
I am in agreement that open access issues as they relate to business
models, policy or governance, are not areas within the IETF mission.
However, you have avoided giving consideration to the technical guts of my
proposal: re: IPv6 flow field range partitioning, IPv6 prefix propagation
and MPLS LSP to v6 flow mapping (as they emerge from DOCSIS SIDs). I am
not proposing an open access working group per se, but I would like to
know what the IETF-ers think about how best to support multiple
simultaneous ISPs in an IETF-standardized sort of way. Do not ask me to
have these discussions at Cablelabs... they do not want it. So where else?
I've been out of touch for a while, so if anybody can bring me up to speed
in a manner that is a bit more enthusiastic, I would appreciate deeply.
Discussion of specific vendor's products is also outside our scope,
except
when they directly illustrate technical discussions.
Can one at least tell me whether Multi-VRF is known to be an IETF
standard? What is the RFC?
It's clear that producing technical standards that are fair and open is
in the IETF's mission, and that is where we should focus. If you have
technical proposals that tackle this, they are most welcome, in Paris,
Vancouver, or on-line.
I should propose an ID in the IPv6 working group?
You might, however, be interested by RFC 4084.
I do not see the relevance of this RFC. Anything else?
-=Francois=-
819 692 1383
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf