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@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Francois Menard > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:19 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf