Re: SE-IPSP definition

Holland,,

Holland, Peter Michael (Peter) wrote:                                             (Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:29:33)
> Tolga,
> Concerning text clean up I see a couple of references to 
> C-IPSP/D-IPSP that I assume should be removed.

It was agreed at WGLC that the terms C-IPSP and D-IPSP would be removed.
If it is still possible to do so, it is an editorial change.

> I also noticed several English problems with the numbered 
> items at the start of 4.3. I can send updated text if you 
> would like.
> 
> Reading this thread the problem I see with SE procedures was
> identified in a mail where Brian said:
> >If you want both IPSPs to each have an AS an traffic mode, use DE instead
> of SE.
> Thus I understand there are situations where SE mode cannot be
> used. This is not clear in RFC.

No, there are not situations where SE mode cannot be used.  What I was
saying was that if one pedantically requies that both peers have and
exchange a traffic mode (which they don't need in the first place) that
one should use the DE mode.

SE can work quite fine in all situations with one side not having an ASP
traffic mode.  No change is required.

> 
> Concerning the inapplicability of SSNM message in IPSP mode, I definately
> think it would help if this was explicitly stated - this has been a
> subject on significant discussion in some fora.

All SSNM messages are applicable to IPSPs.  No change is required.

--brian

> 
> Thanks
> Pete
> 

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/