Thanks for clarifying that, it got it now.

But there's one thing for me to understand which hasn't been discussed here,
yet:

There were several sentences in the draft letting me understand that the
connection table (if using not compressed destination_type) has the key as
the node_id, where i.e. when the peer gets a message etc. and has an entry
in the connection table for that peer, it must forward directly (without
consulting the routing table). I understand this (hope this understanding is
right here).

But imagine the initial case: Assume you have a bootstrap up and running and
no other node, and a new node want to enter the overlay, let say as a
client:

1. The new node gets the config document, now it is becoming very
interesting:
2. It does a TLS connection to that bootstrap node.

What now in detail ? Now it has to insert the connection information paired
with the bootstrap node_id in its connection table (and also Routing table)
before routing any _first_ RELOAD Message to a node over that bootstrap.
More precise: It has now a connection and has to insert the connection
information with the node_id of the bootstrap peer into the connection
table. Does it learn the node_id for that connection from any information
out of TLS ?

Cheers,
Frederic


On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:14 AM, jc <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Bruce Lowekamp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yes, using PING first introduces some corner failure cases that simply
> routing the ATTACH to the resource-id of JP does not.
>
> Section 9.5  doesn't actually conflict with the notion that the initial
> attach is routed to the JP's resource-id, though.
>
>
> 9.5 simply says that if peer A learns of peer B through peer C, it needs to
> send the ATTACH through peer C.
>
>
> This is a MUST or should be IMO.
>
> This is simply because A may not have connectivity with B other than
> through peer C, such as when an overlay has been partitioned and is now
> healing.  The initial ATTACH is essentially handled the same way, because it
> is routed via the BP.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:56 PM, < <[email protected]>
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, these methods are also ok.
>> It appear to be inconsistent between section 9.5 and section 11.  I think
>> the method in section 11 is more efficient.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  *Frederic-Philippe Metz < <[email protected]>
>> [email protected]>*
>> 发件人:   <[email protected]>[email protected]
>>
>> 2010-10-25 15:36
>>   收件人
>>  <[email protected]>[email protected]
>> 抄送
>>   主题
>> Re: [P2PSIP]        答复:  Clarification of initial attach procedure
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok. So JP either can
>> a) Send a ping to the resource id+1 (as the node_id of JP) to get the
>> node-id (in the RELOAD message signature of the Ping answer) to then perform
>> an attach to this node_id (this is mentioned in 9.4) or
>> b) directly form a resource-id+1 (as JP's node_id) and send an attach.
>>
>> Do you agree ?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>    Frederic
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:04 AM, 
>> <*[email protected]*<[email protected]>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think JP is correct. The Node of JP is as Resource-ID in Attach. Before
>> Attaching, a Ping message is redundant.
>>
>> There is the description above the second dirgram in the draft:
>> "It sends an Attach to the *Resource-IP* AP+1, which gets routed to NP."
>>
>> "Resource-IP" should be "Resource-ID".
>>
>>
>>
>>   *Frederic-Philippe Metz 
>> <**[email protected]*<[email protected]>
>> *>*
>> 发件人:  *[email protected]* <[email protected]>
>>
>> 2010-10-23 15:31
>>
>>   收件人
>> *[email protected]* <[email protected]>
>> 抄送
>>   主题
>> [P2PSIP] Clarification of initial attach procedure
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've got a question resp. page 123:
>>
>> The first attach in the call flow diagram states JP as the
>> destination. I think it should be AP ? JP has got the node-id of AP
>> from a previous ping, right ? If that assumption is not right, the
>> attach to node-id JP will fail, because 5.5.1 states that the attach
>> to a node-id which isn't reached will fail.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Frédéric
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2PSIP mailing list*
>> **[email protected]* <[email protected]>*
>> **https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip*<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is
>> solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is
>> confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and
>> are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
>> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
>> If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the
>> message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
>> sender.
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam
>> system.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2PSIP mailing list
>>  <[email protected]>[email protected]
>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is 
>> solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is 
>> confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and 
>> are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
>> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
>> If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the 
>> message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
>> sender.
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2PSIP mailing list
>>  <[email protected]>[email protected]
>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>
>
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

Reply via email to