Re: Opportunistic Tunneling

[Fred Templin <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>]

Marc,

Marc Blanchet wrote:

> - define high?. XML takes more bytes than binary. But XML is more
> extensible.

Yes, the tradeoff between efficiency and extensibility
is a familiar one and worth noting.

> TSP/XML gives you the ability to negociate things that are
> useful/required for some scenarios, such as DNS names, dns delegation,
> prefix delegation, etc.. Pros and cons.

But, these things can also be negotiated in other ways.
As you say, pros and cons.

> > So, if nodes require short-lived tunnels and/or many tunnels to many
> > different endpoints there could be a significant efficiency advantage
> > in using the "low road" mechanisms. Whether this can be seen as
> > a measure of "opportunism" I cannot say?
> >    
>
> looks more as how many bytes you care about consuming for your control
> connection. Remember that TSP is only involved at the setup of the tunnel.
> So the cost is pretty low compared with the traffic itself.

The key point here is amortization of the control traffic
wrt the  user traffic. For short-lived tunnels and/or dynamic
management of many tunnels to many different endpoints,
the amout of control traffic would seem to matter.

Thanks - Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com