RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Hi,

Also, don't you think backward compatibility is a requirement?

-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shahram Davari 
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 12:03 PM
> To: 'Ron Bonica'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> 
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Bonica [mailto:Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 11:34 AM
> > To: Shahram Davari; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> > 
> > 
> > Sharam,
> > 
> > Section 7 of this document enumerates a some minimal protocol 
> > requirements.
> > Specifically, it states that:
> > 
> > o a traceResponse will carry information regarding a section 
> > of the traced
> > path
> 
> Why not information about the whole path? Is it becasue GTTP 
> can't do it?
> 
> > o a traceProbe will elicit a traceResponse
> 
> Why not a series of trace responses? Anything fundamentally 
> wrong with it or is it becasue GTTP can't do it?
> 
> > o UDP will carry traceProbes and traceResponses
> 
> Why not TCP or even GTTP over IP?
> 
> > o the protocol will be stateless
> > o each device within the trace path need not maintain an IP 
> > route back to
> > the device that hosts that tracing application
> 
> Why? Why return path from head of the path is not enough?
> 
> > 
> 
> > Although these broad brushstrokes do not specify a protocol, 
> > they provide
> > direction to protocol developers.
> 
> To develop GTTP!
> 
>  We are looking for an IP 
> > based protocol
> > that can probe network elements about whatever tunnels they 
> maintain,
> > regardless of the tunnel type. We are not looking to extend 
> > the capabilities
> > of any particular tunneling technology.
> 
> I know. But the protocol restrictions that are mentioned must 
> be justified.
> 
> -Shahram
> > 
> >                                       Ron
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Shahram Davari
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 5:29 PM
> > > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Although this document is a generic requirement for tunnel
> > > tracing, I find many protocol specific requirements that are not
> > > actually a requirement, rather they are suggesting a 
> > specific solution.
> > >
> > > For example:
> > >
> > > "The protocol elicits a series of traceResponse messages."
> > > "Each traceResponse message represents a hop that connects the
> > > head-end of the traced path to the tail-end of the traced path"
> > > "Each traceProbe message elicits exactly one 
> traceResponse message."
> > > "UDP carries traceProbe and traceResponse messages to their 
> > destinations."
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Shahram
> > >
> > >
> > 
>