RE: [NSIS] Questions about draft-ietf-nsis-req-09.txt

Thanks for your answers.
Vishal

--- Marcus Brunner <brunner@ccrle.nec.de> wrote:
> Vishal,
> 
> see comment inline
> --On Montag, 18. August 2003 08:49 +0100 "Hancock,
> Robert" 
> <robert.hancock@roke.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > i can make some tiny clarifications (maybe):
> >
> >> I had a few questions regarding the nsis req.
> draft
> >> and would appreciate any help.
> >>
> >> In the following paragraph from the draft:
> >>
> >>   "2. Something that assists in managing state
> further
> >> along the signaling path, the NSIS Forwarder.
> >>
> >>    The NSIS Forwarder does not interact with
> higher
> >> layers, but interacts with the NSIS Initiator,
> NSIS
> >> Responder, and possibly one or more NSIS
> Forwarders on
> >> the signaling path, edge-to-edge or end-to-end."
> >>
> >>   I do not completely understand the necessity of
> >> direct interactions between NSIS Forwarder with
> NSIS
> >> Initiator and NSIS Responder. For example, in the
> >> following diagram:
> >>
> >>   A-B-C-D-E-F
> >>     | _____|
> >>        |
> >>      Domain
> >>
> >>  Assuming that A and F are NSIS Initiators and
> >> Responders respectively and that B-C-D-E belong
> to the
> >> same domain and are NSIS Forwarders for a
> particular
> >> session. Why would C or D need to communicate
> with
> >> either of A or F. I may be missing something
> important
> >> here and would really appreciate if someone made
> it
> >> clear for me.
> >
> > [reh] in these cases, the interactions may be with
> neighbour
> > NEs only (C talks to B which talks to A).
> >
> 
> Here it is going to be very design specific. For
> example, an error message 
> or notification, could be directly send from D to A.
> But this has some 
> security implication we are trying to sort out in
> the framework draft and 
> the NTLP design.
> 
> >>
> >> In the following paragraph from the draft:
> >>
> >>   "6. NSIS assumes layer 3 routing and the
> >> determination of next data node selection is not
> done
> >> by NSIS."
> >>
> >> Would this requirement have to change in any way
> if we
> >> decide to allow the NSIS Initiator some (partial
> or
> >> complete) control over the path through which the
> data
> >> for a particular session must flow?
> >
> > [reh] the node with NI functionality could do
> this, but
> > it would not be part of NSIS functionality to
> specify how.
> > In other words, there could be node
> implementations which
> > coordinate routing and signalling, but this
> doesn't alter
> > the signalling requirement.
> >
> 
> Basically, the paragraph restricts to path-coupled
> signaling, where follows 
> the data path. With any implementation of tight
> integration of routing and 
> signaling you can achieve any behaviour you want for
> a limited part of the 
> network.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> nsis@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

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