Re: I-D Action: draft-han-6man-in-band-signaling-for-transport-qos-00.txt

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
>
> > Finally wrt. architectural cleanlyness: Per-flow service negotiation
> > IMHO is clearly a transport layer function, there is no concept of
> > 5-tuple flows at IP layer.
>
> I would agree I  principle, although IPv6 does have that flow label that
> makes the 5-tuple less essential to identify an individual "flow," and it
> sits at layer 3.


Right.


> The problem remains, though: security mechanisms, which render the layer 4
> QoS knobs unworkable. Everything outside the "security enclaves" at either
> end, and these security enclaves might just be inside the two end hosts
> themselves, will have to be delivered best effort.
>
> Bert, I don't follow. One of the big wins using the 3-tuple is that it can
still indicate a flow even if all the transport transport headers and
payload are encrypted. So this should allow specifying QoS without
revealing anything about the content except that the sender wants to group
certain packets together as a flow and apply QoS on them.

Tom


Bert
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>