RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[Ron Bonica <Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com>]

Ooops....

I meant to send this to the list.

                     Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 5:15 PM
> To: 'Ron Bonica'
> Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> 
> 
> Ron,
> 
> This response of yours is not sent to the list. Did you intend 
> not to send it?
> 
> -Shahram
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Bonica [mailto:Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 5:04 PM
> > To: Shahram Davari
> > Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> > 
> > 
> > Shahram,
> > 
> > You are correct. There is a backward compatibility requirement.
> > 
> > The required tracing protocol should be capable of tracing 
> > through many
> > tunnel types without changing any of those tunneling 
> > technologies. This is
> > to say, "we can't build some new feature into foo so that the 
> > tunnel tracing
> > protocol will work for foo".
> > 
> > I will add this to the next version of the spec.
> > 
> > Can you think of any other backwards compatibility requirement?
> > 
> >                                            Ron
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 12:14 PM
> > > To: Shahram Davari; 'Ron Bonica'; 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
> > > Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >