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

[Jamal Hadi Salim <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

There are two issues at stake:
- Single class, multiple instances, same data -> multicast solves it.
We have started such discussions in current protocol draft. Lets just
continue along that line.

- Single class, multiple instances, different data -> multicast not
useful.  We know how to achieve this; however, lets shelf it for now
by adding a note to the draft and revisit it after some more
implementation experiences. This should help us progress. Note that i
agree with you Weiming on the need for this. Hormuzd, Steve/Zsolt and
Joel disagree. Thats 4-2. Lets give them time to play with this some
more and they may come to the same conclusion;-> The weigh in is
efficiency between wasted bandwidth vs wasted compute cycles.

cheers,
jamal

On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 06:33, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> Hormuzd,
> 
> Thanks for reply.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[e-mail]>
> Weiming,
> 
> In majority of cases, most of us have only seen single LFB instances on
> FEs.
> [Weiming] I'm afraid this is not true. From my experience, it's very often we
> have more than  one instances.
> 
> In any case, your requirement can easily be solved by defining a special
> Instance ID for LFBs that addresses all instances of that LFB on the FE.
> I thought we already had some text along these lines in the protocol
> draft (probably the header section)
> [Weiming] Yes, we have proposed using an insatnce broadcast address to address
> all instances. It's useful, but still from my experience, it's not enough. I'v
> very often seen the case where there is only one insatnce that has different
> config requriement than all other instances.
> 
> regards
> Hormuzd
> p.s. I haven't read Zsolt's email on this yet...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wang,Weiming [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:00 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Khosravi, Hormuzd M; [e-mail]; Steven Blake (petri-meat);
> Joel M. Halpern; Alan DeKok; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> Deleganes, Ellen M; Yang, Lily L
> Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?
> 
> Jamal,Hormuzd, and Joel,
> 
> I think we have already have the issue as an editorial note as below:
> 
>        Editorial Note:
>                         1.  Under discussion is, when an 'FE Protocol
> ...
> 
>                         2.  Under discussion is, do we need to support
>                             multiple objects addressing at the LFB Type
>                             and LFB Instance layer? One simple way to
>                             support multiple LFB types or instances is
>                             to use TLVs to identify the group of Type
>                             IDs and Instance IDs, rather than only one
>                             Type and Instance ID.  A range of Instance
>                             IDs may also be supported in this way.
> 
> Hormuzd and Joel, do you really think it is not the case? I remember
> Joel
> supposed there might be thousands of instances with same LFB calss.  In
> this
> case, if we do not support a range of intance addressing, it actually
> makes our
> protocol unpractical.
> 
> regards,
> Weiming
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[e-mail]>
> >
> > So far you are the second person who has shown desire for this. I was
> > the other person; both of us are driven by implementation experience.
> > How about we just keep it as a note in the draft for now (for progress
> > reasons)?
> > Hopefully implementation experience will show the error of whats being
> > proposed right now, then we can come back and fix it?
> >
> > cheers,
> > jamal
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 10:20, Weiming Wang wrote:
> > > Hi Jamal,
> > >
> > > main hdr (eg type = config)
> > >      |
> > >      |
> > >      +--- T = LFBselect
> > >      |        |
> > >      |        +-- LFBCLASSID = target LFB class
> > >      |        |
> > >      |        |
> > >      |        +-- LFBInstance = target LFB instance
> > >
> > > [Weiming] The more I'm thinking, the more I see the value to address
> multipul
> > > LFB instances here (I can now live with single LFB class). To speak
> of this,
> I
> > > have an aspire  to show my yesterday experience with my GRMP test
> platform
> > > (sorry I have to mention it). As you know, GRMP  does not support
> multipul
> LFB
> > > instance addressing.  Yesterday, we had to prepare a show of the
> platform to
> > > guests from our sponsors. Before the show, we spent near one hour to
> operate
> on
> > > the menu to construct a scenario, in which there were 5 output port,
> 5
> > > associated schedulers (LFBs), and several other LFBs that have many
> instances.
> > > unfortunately, we faced a problem with one of the machine. Then we
> had to do
> it
> > > again.  At that time, I had a VERY VERY strong desire that batch
> configuration
> > > based on multipul LFB isntance addressing can be used.
> > >
> > > I can see very simple scheme to include multipul instances here (by
> ranging,
> or
> > > by enum, or by both). Definitely, I believe this will greatly
> improve our
> > > protocol.
> > >
> > > I sincerely hope this be considered seriously by gentlemen.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Weiming
> > >
> > >      |        |
> > >      |        |
> > >      |        +-- T = operation { ADD, DEL, GET, etc}
> > >      |        |   |
> > >      |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
> > >      |        |        // under discussion
> > >      |        |
> > >      |        +-- T = operation { ADD, DEL, GET, etc}
> > >      |        |   |
> > >      |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
> > >      |        |        // under discussion
> > >      |        |
> > >      |        +-- T = operation { ADD, DEL, GET, etc}
> > >      |        |   |
> > >      |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
> > >      |        |        // under discussion
> > >      |        |
> > >
> > > In other words: Very similar to the way we have it already except
> > > the naming has changed and we can target multiple
> > > operations and multiple paths in an LFB instance
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[e-mail]>
> > > >
> > > > Welcome back Weiming. I have updated the text with the
> query/response.
> > > > The only outstanding issue is 6.7. Please weigh in.
> > > > I think we are ready top start making updates.
> > > >
> > > > cheers,
> > > > jamal
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Forces-protocol mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol
> 
> 


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