IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Dime] Review of draft-tsou-dime-base-routing-ext-03.txt

<jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com> Tue, 11 December 2007 22:50 UTC

Return-path: <dime-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2DvT-0006Vd-55; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:50:07 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2DvR-0006VW-CG for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:50:05 -0500
Received: from sehan002bb.han.telia.se ([131.115.18.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2DvQ-0004dO-SM for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:50:05 -0500
Received: from SEHAN021MB.tcad.telia.se ([131.115.18.160]) by sehan002bb.han.telia.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:50:03 +0100
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Dime] Review of draft-tsou-dime-base-routing-ext-03.txt
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:49:49 +0100
Message-ID: <59D7431DE2527D4CB0F1EFEDA5683ED3024F9CF5@SEHAN021MB.tcad.telia.se>
In-Reply-To: <00a701c83bcb$8f25acf0$ad7106d0$@net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Review of draft-tsou-dime-base-routing-ext-03.txt
Thread-Index: Acg7rRqyLoXOrcABSj+r85aZOywqsQAE3qnwAAKfSfAACYZF0A==
References: <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E7509625@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> <OFF1D96C66.DAFB08B8-ON652573AE.0016CC5A-652573AE.0017C06A@aricent.com> <59D7431DE2527D4CB0F1EFEDA5683ED3024F9CB8@SEHAN021MB.tcad.telia.se> <00a701c83bcb$8f25acf0$ad7106d0$@net>
From: jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com
To: glenzorn@comcast.net
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2007 22:50:03.0418 (UTC) FILETIME=[2AD827A0:01C83C48]
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Cc: preeti.shandilya@aricent.com, dime@ietf.org, gshafran@traffixsystems.com
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org

Glen,

> > I am not sure why there is a requirement for subsequent session 
> > oriented message to traverse the same intermediary hops which the 
> > initial message has traversed.
> 
> What if some of the intermediates are stateful and e.g.
> collect charging data by tracking the user session?
> 
> [gwz]
> I must admit that I cannot think of a single (real-life) 
> scenario where this kind of thing would be desirable (let 
> alone required).  Would you mind describing one in detail?
> [/gwz]

References to literature were given earlier in this thread ;)

Anyway, assume two providers connected via "roaming infrastructure
cloud" that cannot guarantee same AAA routes deterministically. The
visited provider has outsourced its AAA based roaming charging to
third party proxies within the "cloud" (each provider may have their
own "third party"). 

/Jouni

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email