IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com> Thu, 13 December 2007 06:24 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 1J2hUl-0002zc-Oh; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:24:31 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2hUk-0002zU-23 for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:24:30 -0500
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.54]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2hUj-0001Ep-E7 for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:24:29 -0500
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JSZ00HJC5R874@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:23:32 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JSZ00FZB5R8O4@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:23:32 +0800 (CST)
Received: from z24109b ([10.70.76.84]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JSZ008XT5R81M@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:23:32 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:23:31 +0800
From: Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-tsou-dime-base-routing-ext-03.txt
To: dime@ietf.org
Message-id: <012401c83d50$aede9580$544c460a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <OF5116DC52.0E91427D-ON652573AF.001775F6-652573AF.0018B0A7@aricent.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0922019991=="
Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org

Dear all,
I would like to re-emphasize Tolga's earlier comment on this (which in my opinion so rightly describes the problem & solution):
1. It is not the originator's, but the visited n/ws business case that its proxy should be in-path for all the messages of the session. So, originator may/need not decide this route, the proxy must have a mechanism to stay in the path.
2. As long as all next hops in the visited n/w are session stateful, the proxy in the visited n/w has no problem to stay in path. The problem comes when there are some session agnostic/stateless agents (read as relays) in between.
3. The explicit routing does not supercede fail over considerations. It will select the same next hop as long as it is available only.


B. R.
Tina


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email