Subject: RE: [IPTEL] TRIP for gateways

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:50:25 -0800 (PST)

Hi Matt,

>All of Jonathan's reasons for push are quite valid. But in large complex 
>networks when you push, the pusher doesn't always know about all the 
>roadbumps and policy variations in the field. Indeed when ISP's started 
>using BGP they went through hell dealing with these issues. Some still do 
>today. And some prefer to have manual control of the process which is 
>essentially the same as pulling.
>

Interesting.

>I'm sure if we think about it we can advocate the push method while 
>allowing for some to pull in the information. But I don't know what bearing 
>this has on SLP which is what we were originally talking about in this thread.
>

So then if a combination of push and pull looks like the best bet, the
question is whether SLP has what's needed (perhaps with a separate protocol
or the notification  extension for push) or whether a custom protocol is 
necessary.

		jak

_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: "Hussein F. Salama" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:29:00 -0800

> or the notification  extension for push) or whether a custom protocol is

If the information is already being pushed in the background, what's the
need for an additional pull mechanism? I am assuming that all
information will be pushed. If not, what type of information should be
pushed and what type should  be pulled?

Hussein

-- 
Hussein F. Salama
Cisco Systems
Mail Stop SJC-21/3, 170 W. Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134
Voice: +1 (408) 527-7147, Fax: +1 (408) 527-7147