Re: Admission field in QSPEC -- was RE: Review ofdraft-ietf-nsis-qspec-18.txt

James,
   
  > I read the 'L-bit' idea before I commented and I have
  > problems with it.  In any of the 6 scenarios listed below,
  > when is it appropriate to use L = 1? In other words, when
  > does the reservation signaling protocol not believe it is
  > the only one in use, and what difference would it make it
  > is was or wasn't?
> 
> I'm suggesting that 'translation' makes the signaling at
  > any stage of any scenario make everything look e2e (L=0),
  > which makes L=1 rather pointless, I believe.
> 
> Now, if there was a trusted indication that informs all 
  > reservation protocols along a signaling path that there
  > was no reservation protocol used within a part of the e2e
  > path, that would be useful, I think - but that's not what
  > you are suggesting.
   
  Martin suggested to incorporate the rsvp object (Admission Priority Policy Element) into nsis.  Rather than do that explicitly (I think there are other problems with that), I suggested what IMO is an equivalent approach.
   
  I don't see the problem with setting either L=0 or L=1 assuming that both rsvp and nsis incorporate the L bit into their respective objects.  As for your scenarios:
   
  Scenario 3 - RSVP start/end, NSIS as the middle
        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
        |   RSVP   |<->|   NSIS   |<->|  NSIS   |<->|  RSVP   |
        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
          Domain1        Domain2       Domain3        Domain4
   
  If domain1 sets L=1, then domain2, domain3, and domain4 all set L=1 meaning that the admission priority values only have local significance (as per the rsvp design).
   
  If domain1 sets L=0, then domain2, domain3, and domain4 all set L=0 meaning that the admission priority values have e2e significance according to the IANA registry (as per the nsis design).
  

Scenario 4 - NSIS start/end, RSVP as the middle
        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
        |   NSIS   |<->|   RSVP   |<->|  RSVP   |<->|  NSIS   |
        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
            Domain1        Domain2       Domain3        Domain4


  If domain1 sets L=1, then domain2, domain3, and domain4 all set L=1 meaning that the admission priority values only have local significance (as per the rsvp design).
   
  If domain1 sets L=0, then domain2, domain3, and domain4 all set L=0 meaning that the admission priority values have e2e significance according to the IANA registry (as per the nsis design).
   
  I don't see the problem with the approach.  I think it satisfies Martin's request.  However, anyone else is more than welcome to propose an alternative.
   
  Jerry

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis