Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?
"Joel M. Halpern" <jhalpern@MEGISTO.com> Thu, 21 October 2004 19:48 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 PAA12859 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:48:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CKj7y-0004pk-2x for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:01:39 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKitq-0000Cn-Vn; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:47:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKifH-0005rj-EP for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:31:59 -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 PAA10731 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:31:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [64.254.114.117] (helo=megisto-e2k.megisto.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CKirm-0004Ge-48 for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:45:05 -0400
Received: from JLaptop.megisto.com ([192.168.20.234]) by megisto-e2k.megisto.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:30:55 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20041021152630.022f5218@mail.megisto.com>
X-Sender: jhalpern@mail.megisto.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:30:38 -0400
To: Zsolt Haraszti <zsolt@modularnet.com>, "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jhalpern@MEGISTO.com>
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?
In-Reply-To: <1098383190.2883.386.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <055401c4b669$97a1c840$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn> <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E025791E5@orsmsx408> <002d01c4b50b$1ecc9c10$020aa8c0@wwm1> <1098102734.1042.134.camel@jzny.localdomain> <013101c4b51d$a50761e0$020aa8c0@wwm1> <1098134060.1077.446.camel@jzny.localdomain> <5.1.0.14.0.20041019093826.0232d418@mail.megisto.com> <055401c4b669$97a1c840$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2004 19:30:56.0030 (UTC) FILETIME=[7C3FEBE0:01C4B7A4]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, "Steven Blake (petri-meat)" <slblake@petri-meat.com>, forces-protocol@ietf.org, Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>, Alan DeKok <alan.dekok@idt.com>, Ellen M Deleganes <ellen.m.deleganes@intel.com>, "Yang, Lily L" <lily.l.yang@intel.com>
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: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
While I do not think it is common, I do think that some implementations without misusing the model will end up with that many or more LFB instances of a single class. The example I gave before is an FE serving an OC48 which can be subdivided for fixed rate ports down to DS0. You can argue that we should invent a multi-port LFB, but that does not seem an inevitable situation. The odd aspect of this is the if we implement sending the same update to multiple LFB instances, it will actually be easier to make some changes if the ports are separate LFBs than it will be if they are table entries in a single LFB. Or else we end up needing block selection syntax for SETs, with implicit element replication. Which suggests we are doing something wrong, since that would mean 3 levels of multicast replication inside the system. Yours, Joel At 02:26 PM 10/21/2004 -0400, Zsolt Haraszti wrote: >For one, if you end up needing 64k LFBs from the same class, I think >you or we did something wrong with the model. _______________________________________________ Forces-protocol mailing list Forces-protocol@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol
- [Forces-protocol] GET/SET in one msg ? Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- [Forces-protocol] Re: GET/SET in one msg ? Joel M. Halpern
- [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Yang, Lily L
- [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Joel M. Halpern
- [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Joel M. Halpern
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Deleganes, Ellen M
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Joel M. Halpern
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Steven Blake
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Zsolt Haraszti
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Zsolt Haraszti
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Joel M. Halpern
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- [2] RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Weiming Wang
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Weiming Wang
- [Forces-protocol] Data encoding -- first part Zsolt Haraszti
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Steven Blake
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Zsolt Haraszti
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Alan DeKok
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Zsolt Haraszti
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Joel M. Halpern
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Alan DeKok
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Zsolt Haraszti
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Zsolt Haraszti
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Joel M. Halpern
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Zsolt Haraszti
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Zsolt Haraszti
- RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Joel M. Halpern
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Alan DeKok
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Data encoding -- first part Alan DeKok
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Weiming Wang
- [Forces-protocol] Instance Select Wang,Weiming
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Instance Select Joel M. Halpern
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Instance Select Weiming Wang
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Instance Select Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Zsolt Haraszti
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Steven Blake
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Steven Blake
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Steven Blake
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Steven Blake
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Ligang Dong
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Ligang Dong
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Ligang Dong
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ? Jamal Hadi Salim