Re: [Forces-protocol] Presentation of the options for LFB-level multicast]

"Weiming Wang" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn> Sat, 06 November 2004 13:43 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 IAA07678 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 08:43:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQQrK-00071d-7j for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:44:02 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CQQqN-0002gO-Lt; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:43:06 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CQQlk-0001xQ-Ov for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:38:17 -0500
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 IAA07258 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 08:38:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [202.96.99.56] (helo=202.96.99.56) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQQlW-0006sU-Ny for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:38:24 -0500
Received: from [202.96.99.59] by 202.96.99.56 with StormMail ESMTP id 58110.341813895; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:59:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from wwm1 (unverified [219.82.170.89]) by mail.gsu.cn (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.0.11) with ESMTP id <B0000103054@mail.gsu.cn>; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:39:34 +0800
Message-ID: <002a01c4c406$2bdce040$020aa8c0@wwm1>
From: "Weiming Wang" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
To: "Robert Haas" <rha@zurich.ibm.com>, <forces-protocol@ietf.org>
References: <4189F776.4080306@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] Presentation of the options for LFB-level multicast]
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:40:10 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++)
X-Scan-Signature: 7da5a831c477fb6ef97f379a05fb683c
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, "\(Ram Gopal \)" <ram.gopal@nokia.com>, Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>, Dong Ligang <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1310153421=="
Sender: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++)
X-Scan-Signature: 6ba8aaf827dcb437101951262f69b3de

Hi Robert,

Just one tiny point. I still cannot see the vital difference between the Merged mcast and Split mcast. Do you mean the main difference is the Merged mcast is for LFB class mcast while the Split mcast is for LFB Instance ID mcast only?  If possible, I think adding some more to explain (or define) the m1 and i1 may help more or less, especially to indicate if m1 is for LFB class and LFB instance, while il is only for LFB instance IDs. 

Cheers,
Weiming
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Robert Haas 

  Hi All,
  I haven't seen any message on ForCES in the last 2 days, so I smell sth fishy. I post again my presentation here.
  Cheers,
  -Robert

  -------- Original Message -------- Subject:  [Forces-protocol] Presentation of the options for LFB-level multicast 
        Date:  Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:12:20 +0100 
        From:  Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com> 
        Organization:  IBM Research Lab 
        To:  <forces-protocol@ietf.org> <forces-protocol@ietf.org> 



All,

Attached is a short presentation for the next IETF that summarizes the 
three options for LFB-level multicast:
- merged (among the current proposal in the draft),
- split (among the current proposals in the draft, called VPN, and 
Zsolt's proposal),
-  xcat (Weiming's proposal).

Also, there is a slide with the issue Jamal raised about unnecessarily 
repeating the class ID for commands destined to LFBs of the same class. 
Personally, I think the overhead is minimal. Maybe your view is different ?

Please review the slides and let me know if you have comments/suggestions.

Depending on the chosen solution(s), we may have to define a TLV for the 
LFB Instance ID, as this can be a normal ID, a virtual ID (MIID), a 
list, or a range.


Regards,
-- 
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




-- 
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

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