Re: ENRP Name Server Takeover Problem
Thomas Dreibholz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rserpool |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am Donnerstag, 26. August 2004 08:09 schrieb Qiaobing Xie: > Thomas, > > This makes a lot of sense to me. My recommendation is to add a "ASAP > Transport Param" field to the PE parameter that is a full SCTP transport > TLV. Simply adding a SCTP port number field may be too restrictive since > some PEs may want to use a separate NIC for its ASAP communications. Yes, this is the best solution. The "ASAP Transport Parameter" should be an optional SCTP Transport Parameter, to be appended to the end of the "Pool Element Parameter" in the common parameters draft. For ASAP (Registration), there should be no such parameter (the home NS has to find out the peer addresses anyway, therefore the NS itself can fill this information into the namespace). For ENRP (PeerNameUpdate and PeerNameTableResponse), this parameter has to be mandatory. Best regards - -- ======================================================================= Dipl.-Inform. Thomas Dreibholz University of Essen, Room ES210 Inst. for Experimental Mathematics Ellernstraße 29 Computer Networking Technology Group D-45326 Essen/Germany - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: [email protected] Homepage: http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dreibh ======================================================================= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBLaz732BbsHYPLWURAqK7AKC1iqoRcUjSXNw2oPRycxYncmAHfQCfYPLs KlC7D5bAuEU+QlcCMecUg2s= =5DJB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----