Subject: RE: [NSIS] Requirements draft and RSVP analysis draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:23:19 +0200

Hi Marcus,

> My question from a reqirements point of view is, what are he 
> initiators of the refresh (end-terminals, any man in the middle 
> like base stations, base station controllers, etc.

One possibility would be to have a proxy function in the network.
Where it is actually deployed would be much more of an 
implementation issue.

br,
John

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:05:13 +0100

> Where it is actually deployed would be much more of an

IMHO, a proxy function needs to be thought through from a protocol, 
probably even more from a information exchange point of view. I don't think 
this an implementaion issue only. (A proxy keeps state we need to prevent 
to have too much state somewhere else.

Marcus

---

From: Brian Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Nov 2001 11:27:04 +1100

> to have too much state somewhere else.
Proxies can also effectively act as interworking points. Consider if the
two hosts support different QoS mechanisms (eg one uses "NSIS
signalling", and the other does DS marking). Proxies therefore may be
important for an overall QoS framework.

---

From: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:51:24 +0100

--On Thursday, November 29, 2001 11:27 AM +1100 Brian Williams 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> probably even more from a information exchange point of view. I don't
>> think  this an implementaion issue only. (A proxy keeps state we need to
>> prevent  to have too much state somewhere else.

> important for an overall QoS framework.

I fully aggree, one has to just take the appraoch of having signaling 
proxies into account for designing the protocol. John has argued that it is 
only an implementation issue (where I do noyt agree with him)

Marcus