[Forces-protocol] Re: Instance Select

"Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn> Fri, 22 October 2004 03:00 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05426 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:00:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CKpsO-0003fN-Rn for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:14:01 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKpYI-0002FJ-8h; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:53:14 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKpW0-00008I-MV for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:50:53 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04308 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [202.96.99.56] (helo=202.96.99.56) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CKpii-0003Pm-8l for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:04:02 -0400
Received: from [202.96.99.59] by 202.96.99.56 with StormMail ESMTP id 99432.341813895; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:09:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: from WWM (unverified [202.96.99.60]) by mail.gsu.cn (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.0.11) with ESMTP id <B0000084870@mail.gsu.cn>; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:46:05 +0800
Message-ID: <0f0501c4b7e1$925dec50$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
From: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
To: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, forces-protocol@ietf.org
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02F99D71@orsmsx408>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:48:11 +0800
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jhalpern@MEGISTO.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, zsolt@nc.rr.com, "Steven Blake (petri-meat)" <slblake@petri-meat.com>, hadi@znyx.com, Alan DeKok <alan.dekok@idt.com>, "Deleganes, Ellen M" <ellen.m.deleganes@intel.com>, "Yang, Lily L" <lily.l.yang@intel.com>
Subject: [Forces-protocol] Re: Instance Select
X-BeenThere: forces-protocol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: forces-protocol <forces-protocol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/forces-protocol>
List-Post: <mailto:forces-protocol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976

Hormuzd,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>
Subject: RE: Instance Select


Weiming,

I haven't seen any compelling example (real NE) to need this kind of
functionality in the protocol.
[Weiming]I think i'v repeated this necessity several times . Sorry you can not
feel it, but I'm sure if you'v got a test platform to practically do something,
you'l have more strong feel on the desire for this :)
Therefore, I don't think this complexity needs to be added...
[Weiming] I don't agree it adds much complexity.
at most we
need a Broadcast Instance ID definition (Send msgs to all LFBs of a
particular Type).
[Weiming]That's not enough. I'v shown some examples to state this.

But I will be happy to hear what Jamal, others have to
say on this ? I am not religious either way...


regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Wang,Weiming [mailto:wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:48 PM
To: forces-protocol@ietf.org
Cc: Khosravi, Hormuzd M; hadi@znyx.com; Joel M. Halpern;
ram.gopal@nokia.com; Yang, Lily L; Alan DeKok; zsolt@nc.rr.com; Steven
Blake (petri-meat); Deleganes, Ellen M
Subject: Instance Select

Hi Jamal, Hormuzd, etc,

To summarize the discussions on multiple instances, I try to propose
following
scheme for instance selection, which follows Robert's idea and Jamal's
format,
as:

PL level PDU : = MAINHDR<LFBselect>+
LFBselect := LFBCLASSID InsSelect <OPER>+
InsSelect := InstanceID <RangeMark | Instance ID >+
RangeMark := '0xFFFFFFFF'; the value is the same as Broadcast Instance
address,
no worry of ambiguity here.

The InsSelect is a TLV, whose structure is shown as:

main hdr (eg type = config)
     |
     |
     +-- T = LFBselect
     |        |
     |        +- LFBCLASSID = target LFB class
     |        |
     |        |
     |        +- T = InsSelect
     |        |   |
     |        |   V = InstanceID <RangeMark | Instance ID >+
     |        |
     |        +- T = operation { ADD, DEL, GET, etc}
     ...

Best Regards,
Weiming






_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
Forces-protocol@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol