Subject: [nemo] Network priority for Binding

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:15:01 +0100

Hi:

Seems to me that the Binding should be sent with a network priority.
Because they are keep alive. 

The reason is that if they get mixed with a lot of traffic on a slow
line, the BU may time out otherwise. It's a very classical problem. 

I could not find in RFC 2328 or 2740 a statement about that for the
Hello protocol in OSPF so maybe it's alright to say nothing in the spec
and let it fall into the sense.

But as opposed to Hellos, though, the BU may travel a long way, maybe
across other MRs. So maybe it's worth agreeing on how it is done and
what MRs need to support in terms of precedence or DSCP management.

Also it seems that It's a mostly a MIP6 thing anyway...

But Nemo makes it worse because of the nested configuration:

-	If a BU from a MR is tunneled by the upstream MR, should the
encapsulated packet bear the same DSCP?
-	If the DSCP is copied on the encapsulation, then this opens to a
downstream MR attacking with high traffic of high priority messages

Some RO solutions inside the nested Nemo allow circumventing the first
problem. The second one, I guess, is mostly a configuration issue if the
MR is able to perform some ingress filtering/ priority queuing.

What do you think?

Pascal