Subject: Roles config. in MASC

From: Mikhail Smirnov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:04:32 +0200

Hi,

it is not clear for me how roles should be configured in MASC nodes:
per interface or just a single role per MASC node?

From 7.2 (OPEN msg format) saying:

My Role (Rol):
     The proposed relationship of the sending system to the receiving
     system 

and from 7.3 (UPDATE) saying

 Rol:
      The relationship/role of the Origin of the message to the node
      sending that message 

I can conclude that roles might be configured per interface.
However from Table 1 (11.1) it seems that there is a single role
per MASC node.

Thanks in advance for your comments

Michael

---

From: Pavlin Ivanov Radoslavov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:09:18 -0700

> However from Table 1 (11.1) it seems that there is a single role

The Role is "per Open (TCP) connection". 
Will make this clearer in the next revision.

Thanks,
Pavlin

---

From: Mikhail Smirnov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 20:14:09 +0200

Pavlin,

thanks for your fast reply - 

> Will make this clearer in the next revision.

regards

Michael

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:00:05 -0700 (PDT)

> per interface or just a single role per MASC node?

Neither, it's peer peering.  Interfaces are not relevant to
a MASC node.

-Dave

---

From: Mikhail Smirnov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:37:29 +0200

Hi,

> Neither, it's peer peering.  Interfaces are not relevant to

OK, Pavlin said that roles are per open TCP connections (I called them
"interfaces"). From the MASC Topology example [ietf-42-masc-update.ps]
and other drawings it's clear that a MASC node could participate in more
than one TCP connection at a time, right?
From section 11.1 [masc-02] it looks like a node can receive on a
connection for which it's locally configured as "internal peer" an UPDATE
message with *any* Orgin Role (1st column of Table 1).

Is this what you call peer peering?

Thanks in advance

Michael

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:06:37 -0700 (PDT)

> > Neither, it's peer peering.  Interfaces are not relevant to
typo:               ^ delete extra e
> > a MASC node.

"per peering"

> "interfaces"). From the MASC Topology example [ietf-42-masc-update.ps]

Roles are configured per peering ( = a TCP connection regardless of
whether it's currently open or not ).

> than one TCP connection at a time, right?

Right.

> message with *any* Orgin Role (1st column of Table 1).

Yes.

> Is this what you call peer peering?

No.  Everyone you have a potential connection to is called a "peer"
(whether internal or external, and whether parent, child, or sibling).
A peer just means someone you talk to.  Maybe it's a bad term,
but it's the same term used in BGP and other related protocols.

-Dave

---

From: Mikhail Smirnov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:41:59 +0200

OK, thanks a lot,

> ...  Everyone you have a potential connection to is called a "peer"

it is a bad term esp. for MASC where you define a role "internal-peer".
You better then say that there are roles 
1. internal peer
2. external peer further subdivided
  2.1 child
  2.2 parent
  2.3 sibling
or use "MASC connection" instead of peering (you have already "MASC topology").

It'll be also useful to know HOW a local node decides which role it is
now in for this particular connection?

Regards

Michael

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:37:53 -0700 (PDT)

> now in for this particular connection?

Configuration.  It's not something that changes... it generally
would match a contractual relationship, and as such is not something
you want to be guessed at by an implementation.  You want to make sure
it's following the right policy, and so manual configuration
here is a good thing.

-Dave