Re: The problem of the framework draft
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 26 January 1998 05:17 UTC
Delivery-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 00:17:08 -0500
Return-Path: owner-qosr@ca.newbridge.com
Received: from ns.newbridge.com (ns.newbridge.com [192.75.23.67])
by ns.ietf.org (8.8.7/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id AAA11973
for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 00:17:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from smap@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id AAA04834;
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 00:12:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kanata-gw1(192.75.23.72) by ns via smap (V1.3)
id sma004706; Mon Jan 26 00:10:57 1998
Received: from kanmaster.ca.newbridge.com by kanata-gw1.ca.newbridge.com
via smtpd (for ns.newbridge.com [192.75.23.67]) with SMTP;
26 Jan 1998 05:10:57 UT
Received: (from smap@localhost) by ca.newbridge.com. (8.8.6/8.8.6) id AAA25804;
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 00:10:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from distmaster.ca.newbridge.com(138.120.49.20) by
kanmaster.ca.newbridge.com via smap (V1.3)
id sma025721; Mon Jan 26 00:09:35 1998
Received: by distmaster.ca.newbridge.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id XAA03657; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:41:58 -0500
Received: from ca.newbridge.com. by distmaster.ca.newbridge.com
(SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA03647; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:41:53 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost) by ca.newbridge.com. (8.8.6/8.8.6) id XAA24369;
Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:41:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kanata-gw.ca.newbridge.com(138.120.49.2) by
kanmaster.ca.newbridge.com via smap (V1.3)
id sma024346; Sun Jan 25 23:40:55 1998
Received: from ns.newbridge.com ([192.75.23.67]) by kanata-gw.ca.newbridge.com
via smtpd (for kanmaster.ca.newbridge.com [138.120.124.4]) with SMTP;
26 Jan 1998 04:40:55 UT
Received: (from smap@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id XAA25844;
Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:40:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from unknown(131.112.32.132) by ns.newbridge.com via smap (V1.3)
id sma025810; Sun Jan 25 23:40:42 1998
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-Id: <199801260432.NAA08213@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Received: by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (8.6.11/TM2.1)
id NAA08213; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:32:09 +0900
Subject: Re: The problem of the framework draft
To: qosr@ca.newbridge.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 98 13:32:09 JST
Cc: qosr@ca.newbridge.com
In-Reply-To: <5040100013870208000002L082*@MHS>;
from "HJ Sandick" at Jan 21, 98 9:45 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Sender: owner-qosr@Newbridge.COM
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: qosr@Newbridge.COM
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe to qosr-request@newbridge.com
Hal; > Eric, > > Good note (as always). No, it's better neglected. But as you insist... > >> >Why, do you think, we can't start modifying BGP, until we finish > >> >modifying OSPF and RIP? > >> > >> I didn't say that we had to wait to modify interdomain protocols until we > >> were finished with modifying intradomain protocols. > > > >What did you say, then? > > > > I said that we want to *start* with the intradomain protocols, not wait > until all of them were finished before working on interdomain protocols! We should better say that we want to *start* with the interdomain protocols, not wait until a pile of intradomain protocols, which does not scale nor interoperate with each other nor with scalable interdomain protocols, are generated. > >Then, why QoSR WG can say intra-domain should be tried first? > We can suggest it and we also observe that this is what has already > happened, witness the work on OSPF QoS routing solutions. We can't suggest a thing which has already happened, becasue it has already happened. We can criticise QOSPF and discourage people repeat the same mistake, instead. > >> Part of the reasoning for starting with > >> intradomain protocols is to gain further experience with QoSR methods in > >> environments where experiments are easier to test and deploy. > > > >As I already stated, the easiest approach to test and deploy QoSR > >is to use a protocol which does not distinguish inter/intra > >domain. > > > > While part of your approach does not distinguish between interdomain and > intradomain, it still requires changes to these protocols. These changes > won't magically happen on their own and they won't happen in exact > parallel. Yes, it is possible to deply my approach as the interdomain QoSR protocol. The protocol works intradomain without any magic. No parallel effort necessary. What does not happen magically is that intradomain QoSR protocols interoperate each other. It may or may not be possible to develop a intradomain protocol which can interoperate with my QoSR protocol. But, such an approach can be attempted only after the interdomaiin protocol is fully defined. > We can suggest that changes be made in intradomain protocols > first where they can be studied easier. As there is already a lot of study on QoSR, such as QoSPF, which does not work inter-domain, we don't need more. If there is anything to study about intradomain protocols, it's the study on how intradomain protocol can interoperate with the interdomain protocol(s). That is, the interdomain protocol and its interface to the intradomain protocol must be provided. Masataka Ohta
- Re: The problem of the framework draft Masataka Ohta