Subject: RE: [NSIS] Reliable Transport for NTLP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:38:16 +0300

Hi Sven,

> I would like to second Henning's opinion here, especially for core
> networks. It seems that there would be parts of the network where peering
> relations are stable enough for the cost of the overhead to be amortized
> over many flows. I believe this would make it a worthwhile addition to the
> protocol.

I think that figuring out the details of this is in-scope for NTLP.
What I want to make sure is that we ensure the we get a handle on this,
with the proper scope. 

My current working assumption is that NTLP works in a lightweight
datagram mode with the possibility of a reliable model,  for example,
provided by TCP / SCTP / etc.

John

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

---

From: "Thanh Tra LUU" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:32:58 +0200

Hi,

We have talked that NTLP can use TCP/SCTP/UDP or IP. Do we always keep
this approach or we must choose a specific protocol (IP or transport
protocols) to use ?

According to me, reusing the existing transport protocols is good way
to economize on time and deployment. But it is not the best way to
implement a new signaling protocol. For example, if we use TCP :
+for bundling a message, how can we place many NSLP messages
in a IP(TCP(NTLP(NSLP messages))), is bundling as useful as we've
thought ?
+how we do  fragementation  when IP does it all even though we don't
want to do
fragmentation.
+ TCP congestion/flow control is appropriate to our characteristic
signaling ?
+ Soft-state seems no much sense.

I don't think using IP is easy, but it is useful because we implement
a new signaling protocol only for signaling and implement it without
constraint.

Nary Tra
ENST, Paris.

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: [NSIS] Reliable Transport for NTLP

Hi Sven,

I think that figuring out the details of this is in-scope for NTLP.
What I want to make sure is that we ensure the we get a handle on
this,
with the proper scope.

John