Subject: [NSIS] Poll: Indicating tunnel capability

From: Jukka Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:09:57 -0700

Dear all,

We need to do a decision on how to indicate that a node supports the 
tunnel handling mechanism.

1. The current specification defines a generic NODE_CAPABILITY object 
and introduces one flag to indicate tunnel support, T-bit:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A|B|r|r|         Type          |r|r|r|r|        Length         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |T|                           Reserved                          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2. The other option is to define a 0-length, no flags, object entitled 
NODE_CAPABILITY_TUNNEL. The presence of this object implies support for 
tunnels (no T-bit is needed, the whole 32-bit field is reserved).

So, the question is: do we want to

1. keep this generic node capability object and introduce the first flag 
for this object, the T-bit, or

2. introduce an object only for the tunnel capability?

Option 1 requires some fine-tuning of the text to say the object is 
generic and the tunnel bit T is just the first capability, while option 
2 is a bit simpler to interpret, implement and parse, but is not 
extensible. Option 1 also needs a new IANA registry for the 
capabilities, while option 2 only adds a new object into the existing 
NSLP Object registry.

Please indicate your opinion within two weeks.

Regards,
Jukka

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:02:40 +0000

Hi Jukka

Since option 1 is more extensible than option 2 I would select option 1
to be specified in "draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-xx"

Best regards,
Georgios

On 3/26/2010, "Jukka Manner" <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Roland Bless <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:26:33 +0200

Hi,

> and introduces one flag to indicate tunnel support, T-bit:

I vote for option 2.

Regards,
 Roland

---

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:25:06 +0200

I vote for option 2, it's way simpler and there is right now no suggestion on what to extend for the tunnel capability. 

I guess it is anyhow better to create a new object (+semantics), in the case that somebody will come up with an extension to the tunnel mechanism.

  Martin

[email-masked]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Jukka Manner
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 5:10 AM
> To: nsis
> Subject: [NSIS] Poll: Indicating tunnel capability
> 
> Dear all,
>

---

From: Martin Röhricht <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:22:05 +0200

Hi Jukka,

> and introduces one flag to indicate tunnel support, T-bit:

I second Martin's statement and would prefer option 2 as well.

Martin