Subject: RE: [NSIS] state management and the nsis framework

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:02:56 +0100

Hi

What is the actual benefit of mixing the two protocols like this? Generally,
its best to keep the interface and meaning between the two elements as
simple as possible? Efficincy gains must be minimal? Is it guarenteed that
beacuse the NTLP/ transport is still alive  the NSLP still is?

Louise

-----Original Message-----
From: Georgios Karagiannis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 13 May 2003 14:22
To: Hancock, Robert
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [NSIS] state management and the nsis framework

Hi Robert

[reh]
> > in terms of what is being discussed below, could you clarify
> > if you see
> > any difference in overall NSIS functionality between our two
> > descriptions
> > (and what this difference is).
> >
> > if there is no overall difference, could you explain why you
> > prefer your
> > split of responsibility between NSLP/NTLP. what you propose
> > seems to me
> > to assume a closer customisation of NTLP functionality to
> > support one specific
> > signalling application that I feel we should be aiming for.
>                          ^^^^
> should be:              "than"
>

[GK]
The main difference is the following:
* In my proposed text, the NTLP is used to provide NTLP soft state
management,
   meaning that NTLP refresh messages are used. The NSLP is using this
procedure
   for NSLP soft state management. If a NTLP state is not refreshed, then
the NSLP instance
   is informed about it. Moreover, for inter-domain signaling no NSLP
refresh
   messages are needed. Please note that a NSLP might choose to not use the
NTLP soft
   state management.

* If  I understood you correctly, in your proposed text you are in favour of
using
   the NSLP protocol to provide the NSLP and NTLP soft state manegement.
Meaning that
   each NSLP will have to use its own refresh messages for providing NSLP
and NTLP soft state
   management.

In my opinion my proposed text is presenting a NTLP/NSLP soft state
management concept that is not specific
for one signaling application, but that is general and can be used for all
types of signaling applications.
Please note that this soft state management concept is similar to the soft
state manegement concept presented
in the Bob Braden's draft, see:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-braden-2level-signal-arch-01.txt

However, please note that these two proposals could be combined. The NSLP
that does not use the NTLP
soft state management concpet could provide its own by using NSLP refresh
messages.

Best regards,
Georgios

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

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 16:51:02 +0200

Hi Louise

One of the issues with the two layer split is that two types of states have
to be maintained:
NTLP states and NSLP states.
The NTLP states are associated with transport features, while the NSLP
states
are associated with signaling application features.

One way of providing soft state management is by specifying completely
independent soft state management procedures for the NTLP and NSLP layers.
This means that NTLP will have to use its own NTLP refresh messages and each
NSLP protocol
that is using the NTLP layer will also have to use its own refresh messages.
This will create an unnecessary load on the network.

The other way of providing soft state management is to only use the refresh
messages
belonging to one of the protocol levels (NTLP or NSLP). In this way the load
on the
network can be severely reduced.

Best regards,
Georgios

---

From: "Thanh Tra LUU" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 08:42:17 +0200

Hi Georgios,

> network can be severely reduced.

In the framework, I see that there is not refresh message of NSLP. It means
the NSLP will use the refresh message of NTLP for its purpose and the
information in the NTLP refresh message depends on NSLP. Morever, I don't
understatnd clearly why the load on the network can be severely reduced if
we only use refresh message belonging to one of the protocol levels.

Best regards.

Nary Tra
ENST, Paris
Tel : (0033) (0)1 45 81 71 06

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:18:11 +0200

Hi Nary Tra

By load on the network I am refering to the number of refresh messages
that have to be sent and processed by a NSLP/NTLP aware node
in order to support one signaling application.

When we only use refresh message belonging to one of the protocol levels
then
for one signaling application the number of refresh messages needed
can be two times smaller than the number of refresh messages that have to be
processed
when we use NTLP refresh messages to refresh the NTLP states
and independent NSLP refresh messages to refresh the NSLP states.

Best Regards,
Georgios