Re: hop-by-hop and router alert options [Re: Question about use of RSVP in Production Networks]

Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com> Thu, 12 August 2004 15:28 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08859; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:28:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BvHaN-00063w-GF; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:33:48 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BvHRG-0003B5-FQ; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:24:22 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BvHMR-0002Ma-TH for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:19:23 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08503 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:19:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BvHRP-0005vP-UX for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:24:33 -0400
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2004 08:21:23 -0700
Received: from mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com [171.71.163.17]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i7CFInjd014227; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cisco.com ([10.25.65.179]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with SMTP id AXZ01304; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:18:28 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553)
To: David R Oran <oran@cisco.com>
From: Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB083F50-EC6E-11D8-AAFC-000A95C73842@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <DCB31D22-EC72-11D8-923B-000A95E35274@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: hop-by-hop and router alert options [Re: Question about use of RSVP in Production Networks]
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thursday, August 12, 2004, at 10:49 AM, David R Oran wrote:
> What about discovery of the furthest point. Do you not find that a 
> persuasive use case?

There are actually a number of instances in which some kind of topology
exposure is necessary for some widely-used functions to work properly.
Certainly things like being able to discover the furthest tunnel 
endpoint
is a good example, but also things like being able to present the 
correct
address in a QoS or firewall pinholing (or, indeed, any kind of filter
description) request when there are NATs present.  Note that in this 
case
the topology information isn't presented to endpoints, but only needs to
be correct hop-by-hop (between nodes).

Melinda


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