Subject: RE: what is edge signalling? (was: RE: [NSIS] Re: Comments on draft-westphal-nsis-qos-mobileip-00.txt)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:33:17 +0300

Hi Robert,

> On the 'edge signalling' case, I guess the main point is that 
> I'm confused about the scope of seamoby CT. Specifically 
> regarding MN-AR signalling (no issue about the AR-AR part):

From my viewpoint, CT is not required for NSIS. I view CT as
one tool that an NSIS solution could use.  So, I definately think
that at some point, we will need some sort of applicability 
statement describing how to use CT for NSIS.

John

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

---

From: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 11:05:22 +0200

I see CT as an optimization only and not required for NSIS. However, since 
there is a tendency to support only on-path signaling, this would not work 
anyway (because CT would need off-path signaling for at least some time).

Marcus

> statement describing how to use CT for NSIS.

--------------------------------------
Dr. Marcus Brunner
Network Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: [email-masked]
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus

---

From: Cedric Westphal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 15:05:28 -0700

Marcus,

sorry for being late here...

Marcus Brunner wrote:

> I see CT as an optimization only and not required for NSIS. However, 
> since there is a tendency to support only on-path signaling, this 
> would not work anyway (because CT would need off-path signaling for at 
> least some time). 

I do not understand your first statement. Could you explain it to me a 
bit more?
Are you saying that an optimized solution should not be considered? Your 
requirement draft requires the air interface to be 'efficient'. What is 
the difference between 'efficient' and
'optimized'? If you mean to say that: in a first phase, the design 
should focus on making NSIS
a stand-alone protocol, and the later integrate CT, then I totally agree 
with you. I just hope that this is being kept in mind while designing 
this first phase.

Actually, I don't inderstand the second statement either. Technically, 
CT signaling is not part of NSIS, so whether it is on or off-line does 
not make much of a difference from NSIS perspective. From AR on, NSIS 
takes over, and is on-line if you wish so. In your draft terms, the AR 
functions as the initiator. I hope that you don't mean to say that it 
won't be possible to integrate CT with NSIS in a second phase of design, 
as it is off-path. Could you please clarify? Thanks,

Cedric.

---

From: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:14:41 +0200

--On Montag, 8. Juli 2002 15:05 -0700 Cedric Westphal 
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> bit more? Are you saying that an optimized solution should not be
> considered? Your requirement draft requires the air interface to be
> 'efficient'. What is the difference between 'efficient' and 'optimized'?
> If you mean to say that: in a first phase, the design should focus on
> making NSIS a stand-alone protocol, and the later integrate CT, then I
> totally agree with you. I just hope that this is being kept in mind while
> designing this first phase.

Yes, thats what I meant. Design NSIS without taking care of CT issues. Then 
later see whether we can optimize the NSIS behaviour using CT.

>
> Actually, I don't inderstand the second statement either. Technically, CT
> signaling is not part of NSIS, so whether it is on or off-line does not
> make much of a difference from NSIS perspective. From AR on, NSIS takes
> over, and is on-line if you wish so. In your draft terms, the AR

I am in favour of including off-path signaling into NSIS, because I do not 
see the overhead complexity etc. some people are afraid of. The question 
arises when the handover happens, whether you do have a phase where you 
need off-path signaling or not (and this heavily depenbds how exactly 
people define off-path.

And here off-path means off the original path used at the old location. If 
you regard the reservation from the new location also as a new reservation 
this is not a problem. If you think it is an update of an old reservation 
you might want to preestablish reservations.

Marcus