Hi, > Yah, that would probably work. But I still prefer A
In the new version of the draft (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-01.txt), which was submitted last week, we specify only alternative A. Cheers, Jouni Cullen Jennings wrote: > On Feb 18, 2010, at 3:42 AM, Jouni Mäenpää wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>> A) Doing 2 should be easy using the new MessageExtensions in a PING or >>> PROBE. >> Yes, this should be pretty straightforward. >> >>> B) I think that 1 might run into serious problems as the messages >>> growing and all the fragmentation issues around something in the >>> forwarding header growing. >> Perhaps this problem could be avoided if one placed a limit for the >> maximum number of ForwardingOption entries (containing shared estimates) >> that can be included in the message. >> > > Yah, that would probably work. But I still prefer A > > >> Cheers, >> Jouni > > > Cullen Jennings > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
