Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIMPS connection mode and network re-routing

From: Xiaoming Fu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:38:21 +0100

Hi Robert,

Do we have a measurement about the possibility of a route change due to 
node failure during a session? Unless it is mobility-related route 
change (very likely more frequent), in either mode (c- or d-), an e2e 
refresh at NTLP level (which carefully chooses a refresh timer) in 
general should be ok. If the router which can detect a route change is 
able to support NTLP, we can certainly reuse RSVP local repair 
mechanism, as additional enhancement.

Xiaoming

Hancock, Robert wrote:
> hi marcus,
> 
> 
>>>Therefore, we would propose to get rid of 5.3.4, leaving us with
>>>simple D mode and raw C mode. The consequence would be a final
>>>acceptance within the group that the lack of automatic route change
>>>detection in C mode is something we can all live with.
>>>
>>
>>I have no problem to get rid of this as long as the 
>>specification defines how route changes are handled.
>>
>>Marcus
>>
> 
> 
> there are two parts to 'handled':
> 1. detected
> 2. repaired (in general, "reacted to")
> 
> and (1) can be subdivided into
> 1a. detected as possibly having occurred
> 1b. confirmed (and the new route discovered)
> 
> my view (but i am thinking aloud here) is that 
> 1a - GIMPS will describe one method for this (periodic re-issue
> of D-mode query/response exchanges); might include protocol 
> elements which assist other mechanisms (e.g. TTL measurements);
> but certainly won't be comprehensive. there is important
> stuff to be done here (cf. zappala's routing interface for
> RSVP) but not as part of the basic GIMPS spec.
> 
> 1b - GIMPS defines this already (it's the D mode 
> discover/query), or at least we know it has to.
> 
> 2 - the main point is that GIMPS doesn't carry out
> the repair operation itself, it notifies NSLPs that they
> may need to do it. so, the main issue from a protocol
> perspective is: where (at which node) to deliver the
> notification. there are some subtleties here (sections
> 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 of the GIMPS draft) which some comments
> on would be nice.
> 
> r.
> 

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