IETF Logo Mail Archive

[BEHAVE] draft-petithuguenin-turn-tcp-variant-00.txt [was RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-behave-turn-tcp-02.txt]

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 04 March 2009 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E2E3A6B6C for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:57:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.486
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oc5JwEIZGPTr for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1FC3A68DC for <behave@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:57:19 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,303,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="150949948"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2009 21:57:48 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n24Lvm2t006770; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:57:48 -0800
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n24LvmEq028716; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 21:57:48 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Marc Petit-Huguenin' <petithug@acm.org>, 'Simon Perreault' <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
References: <20090304194502.13A203A6830@core3.amsl.com><49AEDCA0.2070602@viagenie.ca> <49AEE6C4.6080909@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:57:48 -0800
Message-ID: <0adc01c99d14$41bfded0$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
In-Reply-To: <49AEE6C4.6080909@acm.org>
Thread-Index: AcmdCUCMz3dd2qrsThW5qyx9ZWsONAACGJPg
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1230; t=1236203868; x=1237067868; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20draft-petithuguenin-turn-tcp-variant-00.txt=20[ was=20RE=3A=20[BEHAVE]=20I-D=20Action=3Adraft-ietf-behave-tu rn-tcp-02.txt] |Sender:=20; bh=r7AFG3JEJ3XBa59CM64qEl6qA/4L4+Cvfna4hQWYNLw=; b=P1RtHWsUFYl5XSwuS94vKn19QTXdvNjiWssTur3ya1Uh+xy1k3l7PMyOZf hmUfmZakyTZBFR6sa0+C/c0lB0TVkF7Z4bcvqHjitrwmGsbo2VnkV+pJis/e 7ydNG+sqVIBvgJr4ax0HRZy89dyH5qutBQXbhEe5iO6cs4ch0iNqA=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Cc: behave@ietf.org
Subject: [BEHAVE] draft-petithuguenin-turn-tcp-variant-00.txt [was RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-behave-turn-tcp-02.txt]
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:57:27 -0000

> One missing open issue is multiple connections vs shared connection
> (ala SSH).  As far as I can read in the minutes of the Minneapolis
> meeting and the subsequent discussions in the mailing-list, nothing
> was decided.

For everyone else's reference, here are pointers to the mailing list
discussion of your proposal, 
draft-petithuguenin-turn-tcp-variant-00.txt:

your announcement of the I-D:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg04938.html

Rémi Denis-Courmont's comments:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg04942.html

Simon Perreault's comments:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg04939.html

your followup:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg04952.html
where you wrote:

 >
 > Some of your arguments are absolutely true (HOLB), some are 
 > debatable, and the others I have to think about them.
 >
 > But there is also some advantages to the single connection 
 > solution, for example establishing a new peer TCP connection is 
 > faster.  Please also have a look to section 3.3.2 in the excellent 
 > draft-iab-ip-model-evolution.
 >

Please followup to Remi's comments in this thread.

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email