Subject: RE: [NSIS] framework discussion

From: "Hancock, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:02:54 +0100

hi melinda,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 24 October 2002 13:38
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Hancock, Robert; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [NSIS] framework discussion 
> 
> 
> > [Sven] I have the same understanding as you have (just peer 
> discovery, not
> > path/NI discovery). If this resolves the issue that would be great.
> 
> Routing problems tend to be very difficult, and in the
> context of this protocol I'm unclear on what it means to
> talk about peer discovery without also talking about path
> discovery.  Peer relationships *by themselves* really aren't
> very meaningful.
> 
> Melinda
> 
obviously (?) we are talking about finding the appropriate peer within the context of talking about a particular flow (as defined by the flow identification information within the messages). you can regard that as implicitly discovering the path as a result (if you want).

i (and i think sven) were simply reacting to the sentence in your original email:
"Accretion of
topological information and returning it to the NSIS
initiator to sort through and build appropriate messages
is not going to be as effective, I would argue, as the
current RSVP model where each node has information about
adjacent hops and the message's success is not dependent on
someone having knowledge of the entire end-to-end path."

if you change your phrase "each node has information about adjacent hops" --> something about an NSIS entity talking to its peer, i think we're saying the same thing, and no one's suggesting the approach indicated in the first part of your sentence.

(or should i say, i _think_ we're saying the same thing.)

cheers,

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

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:20:14 -0400

> if you change your phrase "each node has information about
> adjacent hops" --> something about an NSIS entity talking
> to its peer, i think we're saying the same thing, and no
> one's suggesting the approach indicated in the first part
> of your sentence.

I'm not sure that we are talking about the same thing.  I do
think that this needs to be clarified in both documents so
that we have a simple description of what's intended.  I've
seen quite a few proposals, both in midcom and in discussion
of off-path QoS signaling, that place IP-layer route
information in the application, so when you say that
"obviously (?) we are talking about finding the appropriate
peer within the context of talking about a particular flow"
it is actually not that obvious (although in an ideal world
it would be).

Melinda