Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE LFB (draft sections) to review.
Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com> Sat, 23 October 2004 19:02 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 PAA15297 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:02:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLRN3-0002CA-5a for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:16:09 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLR3x-0004sJ-Sm; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:56:25 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLR1J-0004FB-Hj for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:53:41 -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 OAA14757 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:53:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.105]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLREO-00024F-KB for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:07:13 -0400
Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9NIqipA149556; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:52:45 -0400
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i9NIqh4G117934; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:52:43 -0400
Received: from [9.4.69.18] (dhcp69-18.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.69.18]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA82352; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:52:42 +0200
Message-ID: <417AA86E.2030209@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:52:30 +0200
From: Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM Research Lab
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Weiming Wang <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE LFB (draft sections) to review.
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408><1E526654-24BF-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417A23E6.7010504@zurich.ibm.com> <005b01c4b907$242b1790$020aa8c0@wwm1>
In-Reply-To: <005b01c4b907$242b1790$020aa8c0@wwm1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by e5.ny.us.ibm.com id i9NIqipA149556
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93b4f10b2112e1468b61e19ea6180478
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, forces-protocol@ietf.org, avri@psg.com, hadi@znyx.com, Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
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: 96d3a783a4707f1ab458eb15058bb2d7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Weiming, Thanks for your valuable comments. I'll send an update to the text shortly. See some answers in-line. Regards, -Robert Weiming Wang wrote: >Hi Robert, > >A general comment is: >I think the difference and the sameness of the FE protocol LFB and FE LFB with >the general FE model LFBs should be specifically addressed. > >I can see the sameness is: > >1. a LFB class id and an instance id are used to address them. >2. contains attributes, capabilities and events that can be operated via >protocol messages. > >I can see the difference is: > >1. These LFBs will be lunched along the time the FE is started, before first >ForCES protocol message is sent or received, and whose status should not be >allowed being changed by protocol messages then. Any status operation toward >these LFBs will result in operation error. >2. a defaut value for these LFB attributes are needed , and the instance IDs for >these LFBs are also predefined (I suppose LFBs defined by FE model, whose >instance is configured by PL msg). (you'v described this point) >3. These LFBs will be defined as black blocks that do not have any input or >output ports from FE LFB topology viewpoint. >4. Followed 3, these LFBs will then not be included in FE LFB topology. > > > Agreed. >can now only think of these, we may have more later. > >Some more comments pls see inline for. > >regards, >weiming > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Haas" <rha@zurich.ibm.com> > >All, >Below is a new draft of the sections related to FE/Protocol LFBs. Please >review. > >I will also try to add a table summarizing the operations allowed in >each type of PL message. I sent it in a previous message. > >BTW, I find it a bit odd to have Query messages defined before Config >messages in Section "Protocol Messages". Does anyone mind changing the >order ? >[Weiming]It's ok to me, and I also see it's not very normal compared with other >systems. One difference with ForCES system is it' query message is first used >than config msg(query capability). Anyway, i agree to change. > >Avri, >Please send the xml files once you have updated them. I'll then >incorporate my text below directly taking suggestions/comments into >account, unless you want to do it ;-) > >BTW, we'll have to remove the State maintenance section and add a new >chapter for these LFBs (new xml file ?). > >Regards, >-Robert > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >----------------------------------- >We can remove sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, and replace them with a single >section that provides an overview of what these "special LFBs": > >New section 3.3.2: > >Whereas four key PL messages have a specific type assigned (Association >Setup, Response, and Teardown, as well as Heartbeat) mostly for >simplicity and monitoring reasons, all other PL messages follow the LFB >structure as this provides more flexibility for future enhancements. In >addition, this shows how the ForCES protocol itself can be controlled by >the very same type of structures (LFBs) as it uses to control functions >such as IP forwarding, filtering, etc. > >To achieve this, the following LFBs are used: FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, >and CE LFB. These LFBs are detailed in Section XXX. An short description >is provided here: > >The FE Protocol LFB is a logical entity in each FE that is used to >control the ForCES protocol. The CE operates on this LFB to subscribe or >unsubscribe to Heartbeat messages, define the Heartbeat interval, or >discover which ForCES protocol version and which TMLs the FE supports. >The FE Protocol LFB also contains the various ForCES ID to be used: >unicast IDs and table of the PL multicast IDs the FE must be listening to. >[TBD: I don't think we need a CE Protocol LFB] > >The FE LFB (referred to as "FE attributes" in the model draft) should >not be confused with the FE Protocol Object. The FE LFB is a logical >entity in each FE and contains attributes relative to the FE itself, and >not to the operation of the ForCES protocol between the CE and the FE. >Such attributes can be FEState (refer to model draft), vendor, etc. The >FE LFB contains in particular an table that maps a virtual LFB Instance >ID to one or more Instance IDs of LFBs in the FE. > >The CE LFB is the counterpart of the FE LFB. The CE LFB is a logical >entity in each CE and contains attributes relative to the CE itself, and >not to the operation of the ForCES protocol between the CE and the FE. >This LFB can be used to convey event notifications from a CE to FEs. >Some events may be sent by the CE without prior subscription by the FEs. > >[Weiming]I just see some repeats here of this section with followed specific >section. > > > It's on purpose, because the section below will only appear a few pages later. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >----------------------------------- >The following section should be inserted just before the "Protocol >Messages" section. It provides the detail (in english, not xml) of the LFBs. > >Chapter X: FE, CE, and Protocol LFBs. > >The following LFBs are used to control the operation of the ForCES >protocol and interact with FEs and CEs. >[Weiming]I think more description include the difference and the sameness of >these LFBs with FE model LFBs) should be described here. > > > Done. >Section X.1 FE Protocol LFB > >The FE Protocol LFB is a logical entity in each FE that is used to >control the ForCES protocol. The FE Protocol LFB can be manipulated >using the standard PL messages. >[Weiming]Except the LFB state operations. > > > Agreed. Removed the sentence from text. >The FE Protocol LFB Class ID is assigned >the value 0x1. The FE LFB Instance ID is assigned the value 0x1. There >must always be one and only one instance of the FE Protocol LFB in an >FE. The values of the attributes in the FE Protocol LFB have pre-defined >default values that are specified here. Unless explicit changes are made >to these values using Config messages from the CE, these default values >MUST be used for the operation of the protocol. >[Weiming] do we need to tell which attributes whose value should be preset >default values? > > > We will have to describe each attribute in more details at some point. Not now. >The FE Protocol Object consists of the following elements: > >FE Protocol events that can be subscribed/unsubscribed: > FE heartbeat > FE TML events (TBD) > FE Protocol capabilities (read-only): > Supported ForCES protocol version(s) by the FE > Supported ForCES FE model(s) by the FE > Some TML capability description(s) > FE Protocol attributes (can be read and set): > Current version of the ForCES protocol > Current version of the FE model > > FE unicast ID(s) (list) > FE multicast ID(s) (list) >[Weiming] Can these two be one attribute, only with two tables? > > > FE unicast should actually not be a list (otherwise how does the FE decide which ID to use as Sender ?) > Association Expiry Timer > Heartbeat Interval > Primary CE > FE failover and restart policy >[Weiming] I suppose to and CE failover or leave policy, because it is >important. It will tell what FE will do if it finds it can not connect to a CE >and get command from it. By using this plicy, CE can in advance tell the FE to >go inactive, totally go down, or just do whatever it can (graceful restart?) if >CE fails. > > > I thought that what you decribed is actually captured under the name "FE failover and restart policy" Or what does that mean ? >Section X.2 > >The FE LFB is a logical entity in each FE and contains attributes >relative to the FE itself, and not to the operation of the ForCES >protocol. The FE LFB Class ID is assigned the value 0x2. The FE LFB >Instance ID is assigned the value 0x1. There must always be one and only >one instance of the FE LFB in an FE. > >The FE LFB consists of the following elements: > FE Events: > FEAllEvents (subscribing to this corresponds to subscribing to all >events below) > FEStatusChange (events that signal FE Up/Down/Active/Inactive/Failover) > FE DoS alert > FE capability change > FE attributes: > FEStatusChange (to set the FE in Active, Inactive, or Shutdown mode >[Note: this replies the State Maintenance messages]) > MIID table (a list of virtual LFB Instance IDs that map to a list of >Instance IDs of LFBs in that FE [Refer to Zsolt's note]) > FE Behavior Exp. Timer > HA Mode > [the attributes below were previously under Query message] > Inter-FE topology > Intra-FE topology >[Weiming] although I'm not very sure of other's thoughts, I think the attribute >for FE DoS Protect policy should be needed. This attribute will be transfered >to TML layer via something (API ?). > > > Added. >Section X.3 > >The CE LFB is a logical entity in each CE and contains attributes >relative to the CE itself, and not to the operation of the ForCES protocol. > >The FE LFB consists of the following elements: >[Weiming] should be CE LFB? > CE Events: > CEAllEvents (subscribing to this corresponds to subscribing to all >events below) [Do we want to allow an FE to explicitely subscribe to CE >events ?] > CEStatusChange (events that signal CE >Up/Down/Active/Inactive/Failover) [Such events do not necessarily need >to be subscribed to, they can fire even without subscription and inform >the FE] > >[TBD: what else do we need in the CE LFB ?] >[Weiming] I see the CE LFB may only have events attributes appearing to FEs. I >don't think CE attributes should be defined. > > OK -- Robert Haas IBM Zurich Research Laboratory Säumerstrasse 4 CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland phone +41-1-724-8698 fax +41-1-724-8578 http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha _______________________________________________ Forces-protocol mailing list Forces-protocol@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol
- RE: [Forces-protocol] Header Section Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- RE: [Forces-protocol] Header Section Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Header Section avri
- RE: [Forces-protocol] Header Section Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Header Section avri
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Header Section Wang,Weiming
- [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE LFB… Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Weiming Wang
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… avri
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] querry message (path vs attribu… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Header Section Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB,CE … Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] 01-5 avri
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback section 6.1. Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.2 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback on section 6.3 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback on section 6.5 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback on rest of section 6 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Re: querry message (path vs att… Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Wang,Weiming
- [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback on section 6.5 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: querry message (path vs… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback on section 6.5 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5 avri
- [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5 avri
- [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5 Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: querry message (path vs… Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: querry message (path vs… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] 01-7 avri
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 avri
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Joel M. Halpern
- [Forces-protocol] Resend: Feedback: Section 6.2 Jamal Hadi Salim