Hi Richard, On 07/02/2015 08:51, Richard Shockey wrote: > > On 2/6/15, 2:27 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> On 07/02/2015 08:05, Piers O'Hanlon wrote: >>> >>> On 6 Feb 2015, at 18:24, Richard Shockey wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Fine now how do you get the labeling/queueing across the AS boundary? >>>> I >>>> don¹t know any ISP that accepts or recognizes the packet labeling of >>>> another AS. >>>> >>> Sure - that's another whole ballgame! A number of ISPs blow away the >>> DSCP bits in packets from and to the home, as I understand they use >>> their own set of DSCPs internally. >> >> That is entirely in keeping with the diffserv architecture, which is >> explicit that DSCPs are domain-specific and that traffic may be >> reclassified at domain boundaries. (Which is what operators wanted >> when diffserv was designed.) >> >>> But agreements of use across boundaries aren't that clear and probably >>> wouldn't generally be extended to end users. >> >> Agreements across boundaries require mutual trust, so it's to be >> expected that ISPs will reclassify traffic arriving from subscribers. >> For ISP/ISP boundaries, see >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon >> >>> I guess they're also using things like MPLS, or SDN (e.g. Google B4) >>> for traffic engineering. >> >> Diffserv isn't traffic engineering, however. > > > Well Brian after Feb 26 we don¹t know what DIFFSERV will be. It may be > illegal unless you can define what a ³specialized service², ³reasonable > network management² or ³commercially reasonable² actually is. I assume you are referring to some particular jurisdiction, which isn't a standards problem since diffserv is a voluntary standard anyway. However, since the naive politicians blundering about in this area usually attempt to forbid "prioritization" and diffserv is not a priority-based scheme, I doubt that there will be a real problem. Brian