Subject: [AAA-WG]: [AAA-WG][issue]: Realm Routing Table and section 6.1

From: julien Bournelle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 16:44:00 +0200 (MET DST)

Submitter name: Julien Bournelle 
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: May 3, 2002
Document: base
Comment type: E 
Priority: 2 
Section: 2.7 and 6.1
Rationale/Explanation of issue: 

We have section 6.1:
"
  When a message is received, the message is processed in the following
   order:
      1. If the message is destined for the local host, the procedures
         listed in section 6.1.4 are followed.
      2. If the message is intended for a Diameter peer with whom the
         local host is able to directly communicate, the procedures
         listed in section 6.1.5 are followed. This is known as Request
         Forwarding.
      3. The procedures listed in section 6.1.6 are followed, which is
         known as Request Routing.
      4. If none of the above is successful, an answer is returned with
         the Result-Code set to DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_DELIVER.
"

Concerning 2.:

Maybe it could be nice to have a clear definiton of "a Diameter peer with whom
the local host is able to directly communicate". Is it only a peer in the
Diameter Peer table ?

Concerning 3.:

We must follow section 6.1.6

Section 6.1.6:
"
6.1.6  Request Routing

   Diameter request message routing is done via realms. A Diameter
   message that is able to be proxied MUST include the target realm in
   the Destination-Realm AVP. The realm MAY be retrieved from the User-
   Name AVP, which is in the form of a Network Access Identifier (NAI).
   The realm portion of the NAI is inserted in the Destination-Realm
   AVP.

   Diameter agents MAY have a list of locally supported realms, and MAY
   have a list of externally supported realms. When a request is
   received that includes a realm that is not locally supported, the
   message is routed to the peer configured in the Realm Routing Table
   table (see section 2.8).
"

It appears that the only case for which we must use the Realm Routing Table
not need LOCAL action. So is it useful to have this action in the Realm Routing
Table ?

May I miss something ?

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 16:58:47 -0700 (PDT)

Assigned issue #341.