Re: [Dime] comments on draft-tsou-dime-realm-based-redirect-00

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

Do we have indications from operators of users that this is a problem and that standard DIAMETER extensions would be an appropriate way to solve this problem? 

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dime-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:54 AM
> To: ext Sebastien Decugis; Tina TSOU
> Cc: dime at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] comments on 
> draft-tsou-dime-realm-based-redirect-00
> 
> The first thing to decide about the document is whether there 
> is a real problem we want to solve. 
> 
> Then, we jump into how to solve it. 
> Still, thanks a lot for the review. 
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
>  
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: dime-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces at ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of 
> >ext Sebastien Decugis
> >Sent: 15 June, 2009 06:12
> >To: 'Tina TSOU'
> >Cc: dime at ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: [Dime] comments on 
> draft-tsou-dime-realm-based-redirect-00
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I have a naive question. Is it not possible to define a new 
> error code 
> >(distinct from DIAMETER_REDIRECT_INDICATION) for this 
> purpose, to get 
> >rid of managing a single host in the redirect agent? I guess 
> this would 
> >also imply update of RFC 3588, but at least backward compatibility 
> >issues can be removed from the draft.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Sebastien.
> >
> >
> >Glen Zorn a écrit :
> >> Section 2 says:
> >>
> >>    Note that regardless of which approach is used, the
> >original operator
> >>    cannot escape the necessity to specify at least one individual
> >>    Redirect-Host in indications to upstream Diameter nodes
> >that cannot
> >>    handle realm-based redirection.
> >>
> >> That being the case, this capability seems pretty much useless.  
> >> Presumably, one of the main purposes of realm-based
> >redirection is to
> >> allow SPs to avoid keeping track of Diameter nodes in 
> other realms, 
> >> but if one node needs to be tracked, why not all?
> >Therefore, I think
> >> that this draft needs to be changed to either a) define a new 
> >> application (so that realm-based redirection support can be
> >> advertised) or b) changed to Standards-Track & stated to
> >update RFC 3588.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ~gwz
> >>
> >> Play assigns meaning to human activity--work erases it.
> >>   -- P.L. Wilson
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> DiME mailing list
> >> DiME at ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> >>
> >>   
> >
> >--
> >Sebastien Decugis
> >Research fellow
> >Network Architecture Group
> >NICT (nict.go.jp)
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >DiME mailing list
> >DiME at ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> >
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>