Re: Shared Locator Address Pool (SLAP) protocol proposal

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Dave, please look carefully at the way the NOID proposal uses
the Flow Label as (part of) the connection ID. I had my doubts when
it was first proposed in the design team, but it has its advantages.

   Brian

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> Spencer,
> 
> SD> stopped. But we've clearly considered providing a common capability
> SD> for all transports in a situation that was architecturually similar,
> SD> and the ECM pictures had congestion management in a shim underneath
> SD> multiple transports (the same point in the stack, if I get the SLAP
> SD> vision).
> 
> I think it is the same point in the stack, yes. In fact, the discussions
> that led to my suggestion using "connection id" as the fine-grained
> identifier for a pool also prompted me to realize that the new, IP
> Endpoint (IP-EP) module also needs to provide common congestion control,
> as I commented in my parallel proposal to SLAP.
> 
> SD> The rules for using the SLAP STICK, and especially for modifying it,
> SD> need to be pretty clear. We know how to write clear rules, we just
> SD> need to make sure we do it this time!
> 
> Yup!
> 
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>