Subject: [arch-d] Use of IPv6 Addressing for QoS

From: "Ivancic, William D. \(GRC-RCN0\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:18:11 -0600

I am starting to see a very large amount of discussion of using IPv6
addressing for QoS.   The thought process seems to be that there is
infinite IPv6 address space and that one can basically set up different
networks for QoS.  It may be easier to manage network address rather
than using the QoS bits available in IPv6.  A similar thought process
appears to be happening with security.

To me separating network for things like air traffic control versus
entertainment makes perfect sense.  Separating networks for QoS or
security level may be an attractive and easy solution, but I question
that this is proper use of address space.  

The following are just some examples taken from some recent emails and
other work:

"One thought that came to mind was to distribute IPv6 addresses based on
the class of/quality of service required.  VOIP would get one range of
addresses, non real-time data another, etc... "

"IP-v6 Drivers for Aviation & Usage Concepts, "Power Point, file size
1.124 Mbytes)
See slides 8 and 9
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic/papers_presentations/2007/IPv6-Drive
rs_and_Concepts_for_the_Aviation_Industry_Eurocontrol.ppt

Comment:  To me separating network for things like air traffic control
versus entertainment makes perfect sense.  Separating networks for QoS
may be an attractive and easy solution, but I question that this is
proper use of address space.

EUROCONTROL IPv6 Addressing and Autonomous System Numbers,"
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Aeronautical
Communications Panel (ACP) Sub-Working Group N-1 Working Paper 1108, 09
Nov 2006. 
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic/papers_presentations/2007/WP1108%20E
UROCONTROL%20IPv6%20ASN%20Addressing_final.doc
(MS Word Document, file size 332 kbytes)

Comment: This appears to be proper use of network addresses, but with
quite a large amount of wasted space.

******************************
Will Ivancic

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: Chris Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:09:40 -0500

> that this is proper use of address space.

<rhetoric comment> so what? address space in v6 is 'unlimited'</ 
rhetoric comment>

There are examples today in the v4 world of 'seperate networks' for  
voice, video, data... how is that different than the proposed v6  
networks above? It seems perfectly fine (to me atleast) that people  
might want to make a 'seperate network' for voice, video, private-ip- 
data .... should we actively work to thwart that? would it do any  
good? Perhaps they have more than a managable (in a v4 sense) number  
of managed endpoints to deal with and v6 seems like it'd give them  
management headroom?

> addresses, non real-time data another, etc... "

That seems like an implementation detail for the network in question?  
something to make their qos filtering/marking/management simpler?

-Chris

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:17:38 +0100

> On Jan 30, 2007, at 12:18 PM, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0) wrote:
...
> something to make their qos filtering/marking/management simpler?

And it makes no sense in a world where VoIP, video, and traditional
services are mixed on the same subnets and the same devices, which may be
mobile anyway. When I use my IP phone it has its own IP address; when I
fire up my softphone, it takes over the same SIP and PSTN identity using
a different IP address, sometimes on the same wire and sometimes on
another continent. Trying to resolve the associated QoS challenges by
playing with IP addresses isn't just a layer violation and extra
semantic overloading of addresses: more important, it simply won't work.

    Brian