| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.nsis |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
... now they tell us.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Hancock, Robert [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: 28 May, 2008 05:41
>To: Loughney John (Nokia-OCTO/PaloAlto);
>[email protected]; [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [NSIS] Status update about GIST
>
>john,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>> Of [email protected]
>> Sent: 28 May 2008 03:19
>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [NSIS] Status update about GIST
>>
>> Martin,
>>
>> Does this mean that the use RAO is basically thought of as a
>bad thing
>> by the IESG?
>
>my interpretation of the discussion is that:
>
>IF your protocol
>* uses RAO, and
>* has any likelihood of significant deployment on the Internet
> (where "significant" is defined as "more than RSVP for QoS") THEN
>* it will be experimental
>
>... at least for IPv4. the IPv6 case is (at least to me) much
>less clear cut: theoretically/architecturally they should be
>the same, but the practical/engineering issues are quite different.
>
>one of the routing ADs is going to write a draft explaining this.
>
>robert h.
>
>>
>> John
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>> Of ext Martin Stiemerling
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 6:36 PM
>> To: nsis
>> Subject: [NSIS] Status update about GIST
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It has been a bit silent the last weeks about what is actually
>> happening with GIST. You might still remember that GIST go
>sent to the
>> IESG and underwent the IESG review and discussion.
>>
>> The GIST spec got quite an amount of ABSTAINS during the IESG review
>> and therefore is blocked. Most of the IESG members have had concerns
>> about GIST and this led to the ABSTAINS.
>>
>> However, to get things progressed, Magnus initiated a joint telechat
>> between the IESG, Robert, Henning and me to discuss the
>ABSTAINS. The
>> call took place on Thursday, May 15, 5:30 pm CEST. Here is brief
>> summary (that reassembles my memory):
>>
>> The discussion with the IESG centered around the Router
>Alert Options
>> in
>> IPv4 but also touching IPv6. The general concern about thiss is that
>> NSIS could lead to a flood of IP packets including IP RAO
>options and
>> that this could effect existing RSVP-TE deployments, plus
>all current
>> routers (as IP options go to the slow path), and finally
>that packets
>> with RAO options are anyhow filtered at the edges of the Internet.
>> This cause most of the ABSTAINS and the call for GIST being
>pushed to
>> the experimental track instead the standards track.
>>
>> The issues associated with RAO were discussed for quite some
>while (I
>> remember 1 hours or so) and we couldn't find any agreement for the
>> IESG on staying with RAO as part of the GIST spec AND going for
>> standards track. The envisioned solutions to this is, revert
>to packet
>> filtering mechanism (e.g. 5-tuple) to intercept GIST
>packets, instead
>> of RAO, in the GIST specification. This would be allowed to
>go GIST as
>> standard track. The RAO part will be cut out of the GIST spec and
>> pushed to a separate document. This new document will go on
>> experimental track.
>>
>> This splitting will also effect the NSLPs, as they are also definin
>> RAO usage.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> [email protected]
>>
>> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC
>Europe Limited
>> | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL |
>> Registered in England 2832014
>> _______________________________________________
>> nsis mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
>> _______________________________________________
>> nsis mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
>>
>