[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ecrit] LoST Sync -08
Btw, I noticed that there are even more ways to deploy it. For example, the
Austrian FG could distribute a single mapping that says it is responsible
for Austria only (instead of re-distributing the mappings provided from it's
child LoST servers).
In any case, here is the updated draft:
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync/draft-ietf-ecri
t-lost-sync-08.txt
Let me know if you like it better now.
Ciao
Hannes
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org]
>On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
>Sent: 23 October, 2009 11:13
>To: 'Karl Heinz Wolf'
>Cc: ecrit at ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] LoST Sync -08
>
>Hi Karl Heinz,
>
>
>>>>I looked at the diff and have some comments. First I think
>>it is good
>>>>to have an example with a figure to better understand how it works.
>>>
>>> Thought so too.
>>>
>>>>However, shouldn't Figure 1 be labeled with LoST sync for
>>every arrow?
>>>
>>> One could use LoST sync also in other places but in my example the
>>> synchronization only happens between the FGs.
>>>
>>> I thought it would confuse if I indicate LoST Sync also between the
>>> Austrian FG and the 3 LoST servers. The reader could easily get the
>>> impression that the boundaries stored at these three servers
>>are then
>>> further distributed to the FG Finland. Although one could do
>>that this
>>> is not really the idea of the FG.
>>ok, I see, so you wanted to prohibit that someone thinks that the
>>mapping data will be syncronized all the way to the Finish FG?
>>
>>I have a suggestion for a different (maybe additional?)
>>example: why not show the usage of LoST-sync between two LoST servers
>>in the same cluster synchronizing complete mappings and one
>LoST server
>>pushing up it's coverage reagion. Perhaps this makes it clearer, what
>>do you think?
>>
>
>I am OK with additionally describing how the LoST servers push their
>mappings up to the FG.
>
>>>>Figure 3: shouldn't the FG exchange mappings pointing to
>>LoST servers
>>>>only and not mappings pointing directly to PSAPs?
>>>
>>> The FG exchanges whatever it is configured to exchange. In
>>the Finland
>>> example there is no other LoST server and hence it only
>>exchanges what
>>> it has.
>>>
>>> Does this make sense?
>>
>>I just looked at RFC 5582: "Forest guides do not provide
>>mapping information
>> themselves, but rather redirect to mapping servers."
>>
>>I would argue that having the URI of the PSAP is a mapping
>>information, and therefore not intented to be contained in the
>>FG. As you write in your draft, Finland has one server acting
>>as forest guide and mapping server, I would say when acting as
>>a FG it would have to distribute something pointing to itself
>>when doing a lost-sync with another FG. Does this make sense?
>
>
>It is true that the definition in RFC 5582 seems to suggest that.
>However, when you consider that the FG must have the mapping
>data of all its
>immediate children (in our case of the three LoST servers for
>the Austrian
>FG) then this definition already seems a bit outdated. When a
>LoST request
>gets sent to a FG it then has to look at the mappings it has
>to indicate to
>what other LoST server one has to talk to.
>
>One could, of course, configure the Finnish FG in a way that
>it matches the
>definition, namely by letting the mapping to point to a FG again (which
>co-locates the LoST server).
>
>This would be possible, no doubt, but it is worth the
>additional layer of
>indirection? I can still make the change.
>
>Ciao
>Hannes
>
>>
>>karl heinz
>>
>>> Ciao
>>> Hannes
>>>
>>>>
>>>>karl heinz
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
>>>><Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> A little while ago we had a discussion about the LoST sync
>>document
>>>>> and I now provided the update and added a more
>descriptive example.
>>>>> Please find the latest version here:
>>>>>
>>>>http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync/
>>draft-iet
>>>>> f-ecri
>>>>> t-lost-sync-08.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know if the update addresses the raised comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ciao
>>>>> Hannes
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: I believe the discussion started with this comment:
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06634.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ecrit mailing list
>>>>> Ecrit at ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>Ecrit at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>