Re: Poll: Indicating tunnel capability

I vote for option 2, it's way simpler and there is right now no suggestion on what to extend for the tunnel capability. 

I guess it is anyhow better to create a new object (+semantics), in the case that somebody will come up with an extension to the tunnel mechanism.

  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 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Jukka Manner
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 5:10 AM
> To: nsis
> Subject: [NSIS] Poll: Indicating tunnel capability
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> We need to do a decision on how to indicate that a node supports the
> tunnel handling mechanism.
> 
> 1. The current specification defines a generic NODE_CAPABILITY object
> and introduces one flag to indicate tunnel support, T-bit:
> 
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |A|B|r|r|         Type          |r|r|r|r|        Length         |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |T|                           Reserved                          |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> 
> 2. The other option is to define a 0-length, no flags, object entitled
> NODE_CAPABILITY_TUNNEL. The presence of this object implies support for
> tunnels (no T-bit is needed, the whole 32-bit field is reserved).
> 
> So, the question is: do we want to
> 
> 1. keep this generic node capability object and introduce the first
> flag
> for this object, the T-bit, or
> 
> 2. introduce an object only for the tunnel capability?
> 
> Option 1 requires some fine-tuning of the text to say the object is
> generic and the tunnel bit T is just the first capability, while option
> 2 is a bit simpler to interpret, implement and parse, but is not
> extensible. Option 1 also needs a new IANA registry for the
> capabilities, while option 2 only adds a new object into the existing
> NSLP Object registry.
> 
> Please indicate your opinion within two weeks.
> 
> Regards,
> Jukka
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis