Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?

[Robert Haas <[e-mail]>]

Steven Blake wrote:

>>Do you think we should explicitely forbid the "layer-breaking" option,
>>or could we use both ?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes.  I consider it analogous to mixing IP addresses and ports.  It
>requires a special case in the message parser, and it just doesn't look
>clean.
>
>  
>

As we don't mix layers, you could have the following scenario: MIID M 
"contains" LFBx1, LFBy1, LFBz1 (on FEs x, y, z).
But mcast ID m only spans FE x and FE y.

So a PL message addressed to mcast ID m, and MIID M, would only act on 
LFBx1 and LFBy1.

Or do you want to require that messages to MIID m MUST go to a mcastID 
(m or sth else) that spans at least FEs x and y ? This would be a layer 
violation too, no ?


>Note that I don't see much use in needing to map a single LFB instance
>ID (MIID) to multiple instance IDs on a single ID; i.e., I don't see the
>need for multicast within the FE.  What is really needed is a
>CE-assigned LFB instance ID alias that can be used on many FEs to allow
>coordination of multicast table updates.
>
>  
>
I agree, but Zsolt example, if I recall well, included some level of 
intra-LFB multicasting.

Regards,

-- 
Robert Haas
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
Säumerstrasse 4
CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland
phone [phone]  fax [phone]  http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha

_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol