Re: [NSIS] new GIMPS version

[Takako Sanda <sanda.takako at jp.panasonic.com>]

Hi Robert,

I have a question about section 4.2.4 (Bypass Forwarding).

What is a difference between:
1. A downstream datagram mode message contains an RAO value associated
   with NSIS, and the IP layer is unable to determine whether to forward
   it.
and
2. A downstream datagram mode message contains an RAO value which is
   relevant to the node, but the signaling application for the actual
   NSLPID is not processed.

I cannot understand the situation "IP layer is unable to determine
whether to forward it" in case 1.

Best Regards,
Takako



On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:23:18 +0100
"Hancock, Robert" <robert.hancock at roke.co.uk> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> There is a new version of the GIMPS draft just in time (OK, not really 
> in time,
> but I plead excessive viral computer fun as a distraction...) for the 
> interim.
> Catch it now at http://nsis.srmr.co.uk/draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-02.txt.
> 
> The change log in 9.1 summarises what has changed since the -01 version.
> 
> We've been asked to indicate how the early review comments have been
> taken into account in this version. Most of the details are in the 
> change log,
> so I'll just provide some pointers at the end of this mail.
> 
> Happy reading!
> 
> Robert H.
> 
> Early Review Comment Resolution:
> 
>  From Alex (see http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/nsis/IETF59/nsis-zinin-ietf59.ppt)
> Q:  Why per-flow routing info in NTLP?
> A:  More explanation added at end of 4.1.1
> Q:  Suggests flow based routing?
> A:  This is a misunderstanding; in any case, related developments have 
> changed the text (see change number 6)
> 
>  From Dave (see 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis/current/msg03809.html)
> Q: Flow definition excludes multicast, splitting
> A: Definitions modified, see change number 1
> Q: How do you handle not-on-path proxies
> A: We don't - clarified proxy definition in 3.2
> Q: Why a hop count rather than a VIA header?
> A: The rationale is in the mailing list archive for March; we haven't 
> put this in the document in the interest of brevity. (However, there is 
> improved text on loop handling, see change number 8)
> Q: The D-mode messages have to follow the data flow
> A: Yes, existing text on the subject has been gathered (from the rest of 
> the document) into section 5.3
> Q: Does having GIMPS do NAT traversal hijack signaling application role?
> A: This is still open for discussion. The text in section 6.3 is clear 
> on this. It needs discussion with the NATFW people (i.e. it is not just 
> a GIMPS issue); at the moment, the NATFW NSLP regards handling NAT 
> traversal aspects of non-NATFW NSLPs as out of scope, so the boundary is 
> consistent
> Q: Tunneling nit
> A: Text in 6.4 adjusted accordingly
> Q: Does 8.2 really rule out raw-IP?
> A: The text in 8.2 on the subject has been expanded to say why.
> Q: Aggregation is per-interface, not per-node
> A: Text in 8.4 on aggregation handling adjusted accordingly
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> nsis at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis


_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis