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

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> Mon, 25 October 2004 17:03 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 NAA14260 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:03:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CM8TH-0002zE-JD for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:17:28 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CM87c-0003by-4j; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:55:04 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CM82k-00005j-Fc for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:50:03 -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 MAA13186 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:49:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from znx208-2-156-007.znyx.com ([208.2.156.7] helo=lotus.znyx.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CM8GE-0002fp-FB for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:03:58 -0400
Received: from [10.0.0.9] ([208.2.156.2]) by lotus.znyx.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2004102509522762:40879 ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:52:27 -0700
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>
To: Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
In-Reply-To: <00c601c4ba72$241599d0$8401a8c0@dlg>
References: <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> <1098383190.2883.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <00dd01c4b803$806bd620$8401a8c0@dlg> <1098442868.1112.38.camel@jzny.localdomain> <00c601c4ba72$241599d0$8401a8c0@dlg>
Organization: Znyx Networks
Message-Id: <1098722995.1034.67.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2
Date: 25 Oct 2004 12:49:56 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/25/2004 09:52:27 AM, Serialize by Router on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/25/2004 09:52:31 AM, Serialize complete at 10/25/2004 09:52:31 AM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, "Steven Blake \(petri-meat\)" <slblake@petri-meat.com>, Zsolt Haraszti <zsolt@modularnet.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jhalpern@megisto.com>, forces-protocol@ietf.org, "Wang, Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
X-BeenThere: forces-protocol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: hadi@znyx.com
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: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Ligang,

On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 05:08, Ligang Dong wrote:
> hi, Jamal, 
> Sorry for the delay because of my holiday.
> I like your example although I have not used ASIC in my implementation prototype.
> My current experiences tell me that multicast addressing can make the message simpler and have better transmission efficiency.
> 
> In your design about the multicast, I notice that you use "LFBInstanceMask". It means that you use multicast address. It is obviously an approach. Another approach is to use a list of included LFB instance addresses.

I realized after i responded to you that the approach you posted is
slightly different, but end goals the same. So far i think there are
three approaches being talked about.
1) Yours
2) Steve/Robert with MIID (whcih unfortunately made it into the draft
before consensus was reached)
3) What i posted 

Maybe someone needs to present at the meeting.

Clearly this issue needs revisiting and we may have to make mods
to the LFBSelect TLV.

cheers,
jamal



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