Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Issue 123: Use of Application Identifiers in routing

From: "Sreemanthula Srinivas (NRC/Dallas)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:11:55 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pat Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 27 August, 2001 5:54 PM
To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (NRC/Dallas)
Cc: 'ext Pat Calhoun'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: Issue 123: Use of Application Identifiers in
routing

>> Ok, it is the latter. The use of application id in routing need only
be
>> optional.
>> We are insisting on the realm based routing, because this guarantees
>> that any diameter
>> message will arrive at the destination network irrespective of the
>> capabilities supported
>> in the intermediary network.  We do not want the message to be
rejected
>> because some 
>> broker is not able to support the application.  This may be more of
an
>> issue as new applications come in action. For two networks A and B
>> supporting a new application id, there is no 
>> need for intermediary network to be upgraded.

>If it is a proxy, then by its very definition, the intermediary network
>MUST be upgraded. A proxy is a intermediate device that understands
specific
>applications, and makes policy changes to request and/or answer
messages.
>In order to make such changes, it must be upgraded to support future 
>applications.

>It really sounds like you want a relay, and not a proxy.

But, the intermediary networks can have their own proxies for
determining diamter
traffic or for any other purposes.

I had taken the example of gateways to show that the application ids 
are indeed useful. But, the use of application ids can be a problem in
the deployment
at a large scale. Hence, I would like to make the suggestion of optional
use of 
application ids in the routing.

Thanks,
Srini

PatC

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:02:47 -0700

> traffic or for any other purposes.

Perhaps I am just not seeing the proposed scenario. A proxy is a box that
MUST support a given application, but you seem to state that it doesn't
need to, and will not be upgraded in the future, but at the same time you
want to receive all traffic, regardless of the app.

Sounds like a hybrid between a relay and a proxy, and given that we've never
explored such a scenario before (it wasn't even in any of the ROAMOPS or
NASREQng, or even the AAA WG proxy draft), I am having a hard time 
justifying to myself that such a change is needed.

However, I will shut up, and will take input from the list.

PatC