Second reply to this one :-)
On Fri, 18 May 2012, John MacAuley wrote:
Forgot to answer this question. Yes they
could if we are now including the local information. The
question is does each NSA put in its full connection map, then
let the child NSA do the same thing
which will result in duplicate information? For example:
Parent populates:
{ConnectionId=A1, Provisioned {connectionId=B1, Provisioned},
{connectionId=C1, Provisioned }}
Then the children populate:
{ConnectionId=B1, Provisioned {connectionId=B2, Provisioned},
{connectionId=B3, Provisioned }}
{ConnectionId=C1, Provisioned {connectionId=C2, Provisioned},
{connectionId=C3, Provisioned }}
I (OpenNSA) doesn't keep track of the state for sub connections.
This may sound counter-intuitive, but trying to keep track of that
is actually a bloody mess (I did that initially).
One only needs to track the reply from the last request and then
update the connection state accordingly. If you have seperate
state machines (aggregator and ultmate provider) the concept of
keeping track of subconnection states falls to the ground
immediately.
I _really_ don't think we should have the state of sub
connections. In fact, I cannot see how our protocol can support
this.
Best regards, Henrik
Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net>
Software Developer, NORDUnet
_______________________________________________
nsi-wg mailing list
nsi-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg