Subject: RE: [NSIS] qos-nslp: session binding

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:26:43 +0200

Hi Cheng Hong,

I think it would be better to pick a new one and change the
BOUND_SESSION_ID in the end-to-end session to that. What do you think?

Cheers,
Sven

"Cheng Hong" <[email-masked]> on 24/05/2004 13:21:12

To:    Sven VAN DEN BOSCH/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc:    <[email-masked]>, "'McDonald, Andrew'" <[email-masked]>,
       "'Georgios Karagiannis'" <[email-masked]>
Subject:    RE: [NSIS] qos-nslp: session binding

Hi Sven,

Thanks a lot for the reply. Now, it is clear. Just one more question:

> available. The ingress/egress can then decide to either tear
> down the end-to-end session or to set up a new aggregate
> session to tie the end-to-end one to or to signal each of the
> end-to-end ones separately. All these cases are supported by

Does this also require that the new aggregate session to reuse the same
Session ID, so that it could remain to be the bound session?

cheers

Cheng Hong

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 7:01 PM
> To: Cheng Hong
> Cc: [email-masked]; 'McDonald, Andrew'; 'Georgios Karagiannis'
> Subject: RE: [NSIS] qos-nslp: session binding
>
>
> Hi Cheng Hong,
>
> Please see inline for further comments.
>
> Cheers,
> Sven
>
>
>
>
>
> "Cheng Hong" <[email-masked]> on 24/05/2004 11:54:33
>
> To:    Sven VAN DEN BOSCH/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
> cc:    <[email-masked]>, "'McDonald, Andrew'"
> <[email-masked]>,
>        "'Georgios Karagiannis'" <[email-masked]>
> Subject:    RE: [NSIS] qos-nslp: session binding
>
>
> Hi Sven,
>
> Thanks for the reply, regarding the issue:
>
> > Sven>> I think it is OK. See the definition of binding
> > session and bound
> > session in the paragraph above. The binding session is the one with
> > SID_A (=the end-to-end one) in the example. The bound session (=the
> > aggregate) is the one with SID_B.  So it is only if the
> bound session
> > is torn down that all the binding sessions are torn down as
> well, just
> > as you say.
>
> That is my question. Should all the end-to-end (binding) be
> torn down when the aggregate (bound) session is torn down? I
> think there would be cases when one of the end-to-end
> (binding) session needs to be torn down, and thus requires
> the aggregate (bound) session to be also torn down (since the
> member has changed). But this does not mean all the other end-to-end
> (binding) session should also be torn down.
>
> Sven>> We had imagined it would work as follows: the
> aggregate session
> Sven>> is
> torn down, by the ingress/egress or a QNE in the domain. If
> it is the ingress or the egress, the binding information is
> available. The ingress/egress can then decide to either tear
> down the end-to-end session or to set up a new aggregate
> session to tie the end-to-end one to or to signal each of the
> end-to-end ones separately. All these cases are supported by
> the draft since the use of the session binding information is
> still the responsability of ingress/egress. If it is a QNE
> (inside) that initiates the teardown, the TEAR will
> eventually reach ingress or egress and we fall back in the
> previous case.
>
> Also, there are cases where the network cannot afford to
> sustain the aggregate session, and it has to be torn down,
> but some member of the aggregation, e.g. some high priority
> end-to-end session, could be allowed to remain. In this case,
> not all the end-to-end (binding) sessions have to be torn down.
>
> Sven>> See above. The ingress/egress of the domain would know this and
> decide to re-signal separate end-to-end session (with the
> risk of failure of course).
>
> Or, the scenario you intent to deal with is different from the above?
>
> cheers
>
> Cheng Hong
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked]
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 5:15 PM
> > To: Cheng Hong
> > Cc: [email-masked]; 'McDonald, Andrew'; 'Georgios Karagiannis'
> > Subject: RE: [NSIS] qos-nslp: session binding
> >
> >
> > Hi Cheng Hong,
> >
> > Sorry for the delayed reply (holiday). Please see my
> response inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sven
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Cheng Hong" <[email-masked]> on 20/05/2004 05:21:04
> >
> > To:    <[email-masked]>
> > cc:    "'McDonald, Andrew'" <[email-masked]>, "'Georgios
> >        Karagiannis'" <[email-masked]>, Sven VAN DEN
> >        BOSCH/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
> > Subject:    RE: [NSIS] qos-nslp: session binding
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Regarding the section 4.2.6 session binding, I have a
> question about
> > the first example given. In the second to last paragraph on
> Page 33,
> > it states:
> >
> > "For this purpose, the end-to-end session contains a
> BOUND_SESSION_ID
> > carrying the SESSION_ID of the aggregate session",
> >
> > It is further stated in the first paragraph on page 34,:
> >
> > "By default, a session that is bound to another session with the
> > BOUND_SESSION_ID object shares fate with it. This means that if a
> > bound session is torn down, every binding session should be
> torn down
> > as well".
> >
> > Shouldn't this be the other way around? Obviously, the
> tearing down of
> > the aggregate session doesn't mean that every end-to-end session
> > should be also torn down. But if there is an end-to-end
> session torn
> > down, the aggregated session should be torn down as well.
> >
> > Sven>> I think it is OK. See the definition of binding
> > session and bound
> > session in the paragraph above. The binding session is the one with
> > SID_A (=the end-to-end one) in the example. The bound session (=the
> > aggregate) is the one with SID_B.  So it is only if the
> bound session
> > is torn down that all the binding sessions are torn down as
> well, just
> > as you say.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Cheng Hong
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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