IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [grobj] Referral definition and its purpose?

Scott Brim <swb@employees.org> Thu, 27 May 2010 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <swb@employees.org>
X-Original-To: grobj@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grobj@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362073A6AAB for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2010 06:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 c9VGbcwXSJgu for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2010 06:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5033A6A9B for <grobj@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 May 2010 06:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,311,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="115216791"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 May 2010 13:02:36 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (bxb-vpn3-324.cisco.com [10.86.249.68]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4RD2aV5005318; Thu, 27 May 2010 13:02:36 GMT
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:02:30 -0400
From: Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20100527130230.GA4935@cisco.com>
References: <004d01caf668$b33272e0$730c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <115701cafd32$7cefc180$c4f0200a@cisco.com> <4BFDF394.6050102@network-heretics.com> <124e01cafd55$7f1aa2e0$c4f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <124e01cafd55$7f1aa2e0$c4f0200a@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: grobj@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [grobj] Referral definition and its purpose?
X-BeenThere: grobj@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss Generic Referral Objects <grobj.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grobj>, <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grobj>
List-Post: <mailto:grobj@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grobj>, <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 13:02:47 -0000

Excerpts from Dan Wing on Wed, May 26, 2010 09:31:33PM -0700:
> But my point is that it is a *different* path than the
> signaling path.   I agree the path could be longer and 
> could go around the moon - twice.

I've been trying to figure out why.  At the IP layer it does not
necessarily _have_ to be a different path.

The term from transport is "path-decoupled signaling".  It's not that
the control packets take a different path, but that they _might_ and
that you don't know if they do or not.  I think it's wrong to assert
that it is a different path.

Keith is right that it could be the same path but the referring entity
doesn't know whether it will end up the same or not.  

Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email