[Idr] FW: [tsvwg] draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-02.txt - does BGP need
"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Mon, 11 March 2013 22:56 UTC
Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD5521F9105; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q+0hs1sMEa9S; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2223221F90F6; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r2BMuheL002059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:56:47 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd05.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.129]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:56:31 -0400
Received: from mxhub03.corp.emc.com (mxhub03.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.105]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r2BMuURh010111; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:56:30 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.118]) by mxhub03.corp.emc.com ([10.254.141.105]) with mapi; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:56:30 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:56:27 -0400
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-02.txt - does BGP need
Thread-Index: Ac4enL5MzsqPJ8tbTUWJ/DZtR2F3kgADje1g
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71290FA8CA7@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71290FA8CA7MX15Acorpemccom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] FW: [tsvwg] draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-02.txt - does BGP need
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:56:50 -0000
(+idr mailing list in the hope of finding more carriers) This question is specifically whether a Network Control (CS6) interconnect traffic class is needed in addition to a Priority (EF) traffic class for effective support of BGP traffic across carrier network interconnections. The slide that Sue is referring to takes the position (for discussion) that it is not needed: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-tsvwg-5.pptx Easy does it on the dead cats and rotten tomatoes, please ... Thanks, --David (tsvwg co-chair) From: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:14 PM To: tsvwg@ietf.org Subject: [tsvwg] draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-02.txt - does BGP need To follow-up on the proposal in the RFC5127 changes proposed in the draft draft-geib-tswf-diffserv-intercon-02.txt, I ask do the carriers need the RFC5127 network control (CS6 DSCP) to run BGP? Sue Hares