Re: [Fwd: RE: LC: draft-ietf-forces-protocol-10.txt>>ForCES message size?]

I would strongly prefer not to complicate the protocol by defining a 
size limit and then trying to figure out what to do if the messages 
are too big.
The Redirect channel is supposed to be congestion controlled.
Also, since redirect packets ought not be reassembeled (they ought to 
be the packet as received on the interface by the fE) it follows that 
they are in practice size limittd well below the IP theoretical limit of 64K.
Note that for response messages, if the requestor cares to limit 
sizes he can get things in pieces that will get that effect.  (i.e. 
the CE can choose how much information to ask for.  If it wants a 
whole table, but wants to control possible size issues, it can 
request the data in pieces.  Or even one entry at a time.)
For notifications, it seems that good notification design will not 
put too much information in any one notification.  But I would 
strongly prefer not to have a defined maximum that everyone must stay under.

Yours,
Joel

At 04:30 AM 6/12/2007, Patrick Droz wrote:
>I read the protocol draft again and still want to raise my early
>question:the size of different ForCES message,i think not restrain it and
>let implementation to freely choose will result in disasters,the reason is
>that the protocol implementator not sure what message is legal and must
>handle all sizes,a attacker may send very large size message to cause the
>receiver down.I suppose we should limit the size of each ForCES message
>accordingly.(FYI:The BGP set the message size limit of 4096 bytes, our
>ForCES message is different,we have two sort of message,redirect message is
>one sort,and all other messages belongs to the other,we should treat them
>diffierently.)
>Yours,Fenggen