Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues

[" B. J. Kang " <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:37:58 -0400, Joel M. Halpern 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>I can comment on a few of these items.
>
>At 07:19 AM 9/12/2007, B. J. Kang wrote:
>>I try to implement the ForCES Protocol, but i have some implementation
>>problems.
>>
>>     1.In the article 
>> "draft-ietf-forces-protocol-11", Figure 8, it says that CE
>>can send a "Config FEO Adminup" message if FEs got ready. But I don't see
>>any more information about this? Can anyone show me about the detail of
>>starting a fe?

I have already seen both the article "Protocol" and "Model",but i don't see any 
more information about this(FEO Adminup). I have read them and tried to 
implement them about several mouths, may I lose some thing? 

>>
>>     2.In Appendix D, there are a lot of use 
>> cases. But I want to clean contents
>>of a table, how can i do?
>
>
>If you want to reset the contents of a table, 
>simply make the table (not an element of the 
>table, but the table itself) the target of a SET 
>operation, and provide the contents you want to 
>set it to  (including a 0 length content, which will create an empty table.)
>

Thanks for your answer. But it is a normal solution, or a trick?

>
>>     3.If I use KEY_INFO to search data, then three rows are matched,what 
is
>>the result about "DEL", "SET", and "GET"？all 
>>are set, deleted, or only one row?
>
>KEY_INFO will always select just one entry.  It 
>is an error to try to create a second entry with 
>KEY_INFO that duplicates an existing entry, and 
>the FE is required to detect the error and prevent the creation.
>

So if some collums are used as key_data, they can't be the same?

>
>>     4.If I want to add a new data to a table, 
>> but i don't want to use index (to
>>know which row is free), how can i do?
>
>As I recall, the CE is currently required to pick 
>the entry.  There was an operation that would 
>just use the next free entry, and return the 
>index in the results, but as I recall we removed 
>that as excessive complication.  (I don't have 
>time to check carefully on this, sorry.)
>

If I want to add a new route, I must to know which row is free. This is a funny 
thing. With MySql, I can only assign the data and don't care about which 
entry is free. Using the ForCES Protocol, operations with tables may be a 
difficult thing? I think it is unreasonable, isn't it?

>
>>     5.Are there some information about routing 
>> tables synchronization between
>>CE and FE? I think that it is a important issue, isn't it?
>
>The FEs controlled by a CE inherently lack the 
>CE.  But not by much.  It is actually the case 
>even in real world routers that the actual 
>operational FIB lags the results of the routing 
>calculation.  And those calculations lag the 
>routing updates, which lag the causes ...  Or, to 
>put it another way, such lags are considered very normal and not a problem.
>

>Yours,
>Joel M. Halpern

Thanks for everyone's help.