Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: IPSP proposed text (1st approach)]]

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 13:48:00 -0600

Javier,

You snipped off the answer to your question.

--brian

Javier Pastor-Balbas wrote:                                (Sun, 04 Nov 2001 11:40:20)
> Brian, 
> 
> More comments below..
> 
> 
> --- "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> (snip)
> >   The routing table at IPSP2 is:
> > 
> > 	RC1 RK1
> > 	RC2 RK2
> > 
> >   The routing table at IPSP1 is:
> > 
> > 	RC3 RK3
> > 	RC3 RK4
> > 
> > Now, there is a problem.  This routing table at IPSP1 is
> > not valid: there is the same RC value (index) for two RK
> > entries.  How can this happen?  How will IPSP1 know to
> > return the same RC value when RK1 and RK2 are registered?
> > This would also violate the key relationship that there
> > is a 1:1:1 relationship between RC, RK, and AS.
> > 
> (snip)
> 
> 
> Although I've already answer this paragraph, read it again tell me how
> the next scenario can work....
> 
> 
>             ASP1----ASP2-----ASP3
> 
> They serve to different AS (AS1, AS2, AS3). As in single-ended ASPs
> seems to have the RC predefined, imagine that ASP1 and ASP3 have no
> communication (e.g. they belong to different operators). They both
> decide to communicate with ASP2 with RC1=RC3=3. Therefore the routing
> table in ASP2 will be:
> 
> RC1=3 RK1
> RC3=3 RK3
> 
> This is not compliance with the draft. How do you solve it?
> 
> Cheers // Javier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find a job, post your resume.
> http://careers.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/

---
You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]