[GSMP] question about reservation IDs
Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Sat, 20 September 2003 15:49 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged))
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14016
for <gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:49:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A0jzI-00027W-Cf
for gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:49:32 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost)
by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h8KFnWxu008144
for gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:49:32 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A0jzI-00027H-8R
for gsmp-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:49:32 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged))
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14005
for <gsmp-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:49:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
id 1A0jyn-00024T-9d; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:49:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A0jxo-00021P-AF
for gsmp@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:48:00 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13964
for <gsmp@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:47:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
id 1A0jxn-0005jh-00
for gsmp@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:47:59 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull)
by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A0jxc-0005jF-00
for gsmp@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:47:48 -0400
Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=acm.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22)
id 1A0jwr-000KUT-B2
for gsmp@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:47:01 +0000
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:45:56 +0900
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
To: gsmp@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <85E806AF-EB81-11D7-903D-000393CC2112@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [GSMP] question about reservation IDs
Sender: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: gsmp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp>,
<mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: General Switch Management Protocol WG <gsmp.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gsmp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp>,
<mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
as i mentioned in an earlier message to the list, i am creating a thing called a reservation set that is used for 1:n and m:n recovery purposes. - i think this is only useful for recovery purposes, does anyone else think it might be useful for anything else and therefore should be generalized? - (more important question) i have been going back and forth between thinking these sets should occupy their own reservation number space. they are different in that they really don't tie up resources, but rather just aggregate previously reserved resources and perhaps should not count against the max reservations limit. first thoughts were to take a bit away from the reservation id and define an aggregation (A) flag 0- individual reservation (backward compatible) 1- set reservation then i decided it is silly, there is no driving reason to make them a separate space - there won't be so many compared with actual reservations that it woul make much of a dent in max reservation count. but it keeps nagging at me that i should. so i go back and forth. also i don't currently plan to create a new delete reservation message. rather i think it just has different behavior, if it is an aggregate it deletes the set, but not the reservations themselves. i am keying this off of the A flag but it really doesn't matter since if they occupy the same reservation space i think we can expect the switch to know which are which. any opinions? a. _______________________________________________ GSMP mailing list GSMP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp
- [GSMP] question about reservation IDs Avri Doria