http://nsis.srmr.co.uk/cgi-bin/roundup.cgi/nsis-ntlp-issues/issue4

This issue involves with Query message encapsulation and processing.

The question is, whether it should be pre-assigned as Per-NSLPtype (for example, for QoS NSLP ), or more coarse-grained,

Previously, router alert option 0 is used for per-flow RSVP & IGMPv2 processing, 1 is used for aggregated RSVP processing. RSVP uses a new IP protocol number 46 (aggregated RSVP 134).

My suggestion is - Use one undefined UDP port number as standard port for GIMPS query requests for any given NSLP, and (if we need,) use another for non-NSLP related GIMPS query messages.

- Follow per-NSLPtype way as in RSVP, namely: when a packet with GIMPS-(pre-)allocated RAO value arrives, a GIMPS node processes it and afterwards, depending on 1) GIMPS semantics - whether to forward or not; 2) follow the IP routing table max-prefix match to send it onwards.

At least for the implementation for March. Any suggestion?

Or we should send a mail to Henning/Robert and/or the WG.

Xiaoming