Jim Schaad wrote: > Do these integrators end up with lots of local state for each set of packets > going back and forth? Do they end up carrying state between packets?
The only state is (a) per packet for proxying, and (b) per session for accounting. The session state enables the same rewriting to be done for each accounting packet. > Would it be unreasonable or unnecessary for them to do the packet > re-assembly and then re-send that would be required by the fragmentation > draft? I don't think re-assembly is required by the fragmentation draft. I would strongly avoid requiring such reassembly. Implementing it could require major changes to the proxies. The re-writing done by current proxies is fairly minimal. So it should have minimal effect on the fragments as suggested by the draft. > My mistake - I assumed that the in memory state that was being cached was > being cached into the Proxy-State attribute rather than being stored on the > proxy itself. This would allow for a "state-less" proxy to be created. That isn't done, and likely wouldn't work. There's a history of RADIUS proxies mangling Proxy-State, for no good reason. As a result, most modern implementations don't depend on it. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
