Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?
Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> Wed, 20 October 2004 01:28 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 VAA12813 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CK5TC-0002L6-RC for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:40:55 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CK3mC-0001IX-TN; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:52:24 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CJtR5-0007N5-7b for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:49:55 -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 IAA19471 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:49:48 -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 1CJtdC-0003qv-Ja for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:02:27 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([208.2.156.2]) by lotus.znyx.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2004101905521804:32935 ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:52:18 -0700
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>
To: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
In-Reply-To: <04ab01c4b5c7$1332c430$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E025791E9@orsmsx408> <04ab01c4b5c7$1332c430$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
Organization: ZNYX Networks
Message-Id: <1098190180.1089.912.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:49:40 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/19/2004 05:52:19 AM, Serialize by Router on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/19/2004 05:52:23 AM, Serialize complete at 10/19/2004 05:52:23 AM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f2984bf50fb52a9e56055f779793d783
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, zsolt@nc.rr.com, forces-protocol@ietf.org, Alan DeKok <alan.dekok@idt.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jhalpern@MEGISTO.com>, "Steven Blake (petri-meat)" <slblake@petri-meat.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
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: 97c820c82c68af374c4e382a80dc5017
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com> > 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:wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn] > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:00 PM > To: hadi@znyx.com > Cc: Khosravi, Hormuzd M; ram.gopal@nokia.com; Steven Blake (petri-meat); > Joel M. Halpern; Alan DeKok; zsolt@nc.rr.com; forces-protocol@ietf.org; > 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" <hadi@znyx.com> > > > > 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" <hadi@znyx.com> > > > > > > > > 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 > Forces-protocol@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol > > _______________________________________________ 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