Re: Working Group Last Call: NSIS Operation over IP Tunnels

Hi Roland,

I agree.

Thanks

Charles




On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Roland Bless <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> Charles Shen wrote:
>> Thanks for your comment on this! Whether the NODE_CAPABILITY object
>> should be contained in the tunnel RESERVE' message or in the e2e
>> RESERVE message is a design choice that I have thought about.
>>
>> The primary reason the NODE_CAPABILITY object is included in the e2e
>> RESERVE message is to maintain the property that "any new mechanism
>> introduced in this document will be limited to the tunnel end-points
>> only".
>> In the current design, the tunnel end-point will be the only nodes
>> that receive the message with NODE_CAPABILITY, and as the "A,B" bit
>> setting (01) indicates, they will either process it or ignore it,
>> without propagating it further.
>
>> Your suggestion represents another valid choice. In this case, all
>> tunnel nodes will see this object. If they don't understand, they
>> should just forward it (so the A,B bit should be set to 10); if they
>> do understand it, they process it but make no action after they have
>> found they were not the tunnel end-point, and forward it. One benefit
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
>> of doing this in the tunnel signaling session is that you got the
>> results faster than doing this in the end-to-end signaling session.
>
> It is also safe in the sense that the tunnel endpoint is the final
> destination node of this message. So the message will also not be
> forwarded any further and the initiator can immediately see in the
> RESPONSE whether the Texit is tunnel-aware. I think it is also more
> natural, because one uses the tunnel flow for signaling this capability
> and not the end-to-end flow. IMHO the capability logically belongs more
> to the tunnel flow than to the end-to-end flows. Furthermore, you don't
> want to signal this for every end-to-end flow and the tunnel flow is
> usually only signalled once for initial tunnel setup. So I'd prefer
> this option.
>
>> I also saw the Poll Jukka sent out about the object indicating tunnel
>> handling capability. Given the current context, I think using Option
>> number two, and carry the NODE_CAPABILITY_TUNNEL object in tunnel
>> signaling messages may be an interesting choice.
>
> I'm also in favor of this solution.
>
> Regards,
>  Roland
>
_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis