As an aside, it might be worthwhile to also note that some complimentary work has been drafted in the same vein, albeit with regards to IPv4 and Integrated Services: Integrated Services over IEEE 802.1D/802.1p Networks draft-ietf-issll-802-01.txt This draft provides a proposal to map user_priority values carried in 802.1p to one of the integrated service classes: [snip] Proposal: A Simple Scheme user_priority Service 0 "less than" Best Effort 1 Best Effort 2 reserved 3 reserved 4 Controlled Load 5 Guaranteed Service, 100ms bound 6 Guaranteed Service, 10ms bound 7 reserved [snip] FYI, - paul At 10:06 AM 08/05/97 +0100, Robin Tasker wrote: >Matt > >Just reading IPv6 over FDDI ID (draft-ietf-ipngwg-trans-fddi-net-02.txt), >the discussion in Section 4 (Interaction with Bridges) talks about FDDI >adjacency detection. This is achieved by sending a non-zero LLC priority >which is, in IEEE 802 language, the user_priority parameter of the >M.UNITDATA.request primitive set to non-zero. This relates to Neighbor >Solicitation, Neighbor Advertisement and Router Advertisement frames. > >IEEE 802.1 is near to completing 802.1p which defines mechanisms to provide >traffic classes in bridges/switches and therefore prioritised traffic flows >in bridged networks. The use of the user_priority parameter is central to >this work. > >The proposal in the above ID does not impinge on this work; these frames are >"managing the network" and so need a good priority. However it makes sense >to define the level of user priority to be used rather than leaving it >unspecified as non-zero. The use of user_priority = 7 (the best you can have) >would seem to be a good value. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------