Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 04:20:55 -0700 To: "Norman W. Finn" From: fred@cisco.com (Fred Baker) Subject: Re: Priority, 8 levels or 2 Cc: mjs@NSD.3Com.COM (Mick Seaman), p8021@nic.hep.net At 2:05 AM 4/17/96, Norman W. Finn wrote: > 1. tieing priority to destination MAC address is a mechanism that cannot > be used without altering the operation of existing protocols; and I'm not convinced that MAC Address is sufficient to identify a flow. One can prioritize traffic to an interesting host or router, but one cannot prioritize the traffic which needs priority as opposed to that which does. >Note that I am not talking about such ongoing work as RSVP. The I/G >bit is perfectly compatible with RSVP. Really? RSVP prioritizes flows based on IP source/destination/protocol plus UDP/TCP source and destination port. That's not a single bit... >I have seen no indication that >anyone has suggested a mechanism for IPv4 or IPX to make use of a >destination MAC based priority mechanism. I am not aware of one, either.