[Nsi-wg] Query types

[Jerry Sobieski]

Hmmm...maybe I don't understand what was being described...

I would think that an NSA would keep a connection state for each 
reservation request it received from an RA ( "parent" reservations), and 
each child they spawned as a result (including a local segment as a 
child).     So each NSA maintains state only for requests in which it is 
directly involved as PA or RA.   Any state associated with grand 
children or grandparents is superfluous and (IMO) unnecessary.    And 
siblings are only known by the common parent - siblings do not know of 
each other.

As for John's nomenclature- I thought that was just a description of how 
the results of a recursive detailed Query were rolled up recursively and 
passed up the tree in a comprehensive result.

???
J



On 5/18/12 9:53 AM, Henrik Thostrup Jensen wrote:
> Second reply to this one :-)
>
> On Fri, 18 May 2012, John MacAuley wrote:
>
>> Forgot to answer this question.  Yes they could if we are now 
>> including the local information.  The
>> question is does each NSA put in its full connection map, then let 
>> the child NSA do the same thing
>> which will result in duplicate information?  For example:
>> Parent populates:
>>
>> {ConnectionId=A1, Provisioned {connectionId=B1, Provisioned}, 
>> {connectionId=C1, Provisioned }}
>>
>> Then the children populate:
>> {ConnectionId=B1, Provisioned {connectionId=B2, Provisioned}, 
>> {connectionId=B3, Provisioned }}
>> {ConnectionId=C1, Provisioned {connectionId=C2, Provisioned}, 
>> {connectionId=C3, Provisioned }}
>
> I (OpenNSA) doesn't keep track of the state for sub connections. This 
> may sound counter-intuitive, but trying to keep track of that is 
> actually a bloody mess (I did that initially).
>
> One only needs to track the reply from the last request and then 
> update the connection state accordingly. If you have seperate state 
> machines (aggregator and ultmate provider) the concept of keeping 
> track of subconnection states falls to the ground immediately.
>
> I _really_ don't think we should have the state of sub connections. In 
> fact, I cannot see how our protocol can support this.
>
>
>     Best regards, Henrik
>
>  Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net>
>  Software Developer, NORDUnet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20120518/411ab764/attachment.html>