RE: [saag] Re:

["Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@mchp.siemens.de>]

hi

>
>
> At 03:43 PM 5/29/02 +0200, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >rsvp travels hop-by-hop (rsvp capable nodes) from one end-point
> to an other
> >(except if you use some rsvp extensions like rsvp proxy etc.).
> hence "RSVP
> >is end-to-end in one direction (sender->receiver)" confuses me
> somehow. the
> >security for rsvp is build on hop-by-hop security based on a
> chain-of-trust.
>
> In the sender->receiver direction, the destination IP address
> in the Path message is the receiver's.  In the receiver->
> sender direction, the destination IP address in the Resv message
> is the address of the PHOP that was picked up by the Path
> message.

true. the path message is used for path-pinning to allow the resv message to
travel the same way back. but this is not related to the question of
end-to-end or hop-by-hop protection. both messages travel hop-by-hop.

do you think that the hop-by-hop security in rsvp is a good or a bad thing?
should there be more than what is currently provided?



ciao
hannes

>
> Melinda