Subject: [Dime] Hop-by-Hop identifier in relays

From: Rajith R <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:07:12 +0530

Hi
	If a relay does not use local storage for transaction state (it uses
Proxy-Info AVP instead), MUST it still replace the Hop-by-Hop identifier
with a locally unique value (as described in sec.6.1.9 of RFC-3588-bis-10)?

Regards
Rajith

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Preeti Shandilya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:49:30 +0530

Hi Rajith !

While describing relaying and proxying requests, RFC 3588 implies 
following

"   The Hop-by-Hop identifier in the request is saved, and replaced with
   a locally unique value.  The source of the request is also saved,
   which includes the IP address, port and protocol."

Hence as per above, relay should generate the new id while forwarding the 
requests

Relay node shall receive requests from multiple nodes and in some rare 
scenario 2 requests coming from the different nodes can be same. So it is 
mandatory for the relay node to generate its' own unique hop-by-hop Id for 
each request, on forwarding it further, so that it can match the response 
with the request

regards
Preeti

Rajith R <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
04/17/2008 03:07 PM

Please respond to
[email-masked]

To
[email-masked]
cc

Subject
[Dime] Hop-by-Hop identifier in relays

Hi
                 If a relay does not use local storage for transaction 
state (it uses
Proxy-Info AVP instead), MUST it still replace the Hop-by-Hop identifier
with a locally unique value (as described in sec.6.1.9 of 
RFC-3588-bis-10)?

Regards
Rajith

***********************  Aricent-Unclassified   ***********************

---

From: Rajith R <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:05:12 +0530

Hi
	If the relay uses local storage for txn state, I agree to your point
on why the relay must replace the hop-by-hop id. However, when the relay
uses Proxy-Info AVP for txn state (& no local storage, that means no need to
match response with a request), I am not sure why the relay *MUST* replace
the hop-by-hop id.

Regards

Rajith

________________________________________
From: Preeti Shandilya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 3:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] Hop-by-Hop identifier in relays

Hi Rajith ! 

While describing relaying and proxying requests, RFC 3588 implies following 

regards 
Preeti 

To
[email-masked] 
cc

Subject

Hi
                If a relay does not use local storage for transaction state
(it uses
Proxy-Info AVP instead), MUST it still replace the Hop-by-Hop identifier
with a locally unique value (as described in sec.6.1.9 of RFC-3588-bis-10)?

Regards
Rajith

---

From: "Harish R Prabhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:51:49 +0530

I think it can affect response routing since the contents of 'Proxy-State'
is opaque and hence implementation dependent. Interop issue?

cheers,
Harish

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Rajith R <[email-masked]> wrote:

> state

-- 
Harish R Prabhu
Bangalore, India.

---

From: Preeti Shandilya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:02:28 +0530

Hi !

Your point is valid that you can find the source of the request message 
from the proxy-info AVP, storing some local state information. But 
consider the following case

Source-1 sends a request with hop-by-hop Id as 'X', Relay forwards the 
requests to the destination with unique proxy-info AVP. Before Destination 
could send the response back, source-2 sends a request with the same 
hop-by-hop Id 'X' (this is possible as source-1 and source-2 are 
generating the hop-by-hop Id independently). Relay forwards the request 
with the same hop-by-hop Id X but with unique proxy-info AVP. When this 
request reaches to destination, it shall find that another request has 
come from the same node with the duplicate hop-by-hop Id. Since it is not 
supposed to look into the proxy-info AVP, it may discard the message 
considering it as invalid since hop-by-hop Id has to be unique.

regards
preeti

04/17/2008 04:05 PM

Please respond to
[email-masked]

To
Preeti Shandilya/HSS@HSS
cc
[email-masked]
Subject
Re: [Dime] Hop-by-Hop identifier in relays

Hi
                 If the relay uses local storage for txn state, I agree to 
your point
on why the relay must replace the hop-by-hop id. However, when the relay
uses Proxy-Info AVP for txn state (& no local storage, that means no need 
to
match response with a request), I am not sure why the relay *MUST* replace
the hop-by-hop id.

Regards

Rajith

Hi Rajith ! 

regards 
Preeti 

To
[email-masked] 
cc

Subject

Hi

Regards
Rajith