Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] issue 1: packet encoding

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:34:42 -0800

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> I gave debugging as an example - and btw, it is a _very_ good reason
> to be able to debug protocols.
> The general idea is by inspecting the header i want to be able to tell
> what class of LFB it is going or coming from.
> If you can look at my earlier diagrams and tell me how you could see
me
> decoding that message and identifying that LFB10 is a IPV4 forwarder
> then we could move on.
> 
> [HK] I see limited value of this. How would it work if a single
message
> were being addressed to multiple LFBs (command bundling)? I believe
that
> we should separate LFB ID from FE ID and it should be part of TLVs
> rather than common header. See my email on issue 0. Does having LFB
IDs
> as part of TLVs rather than common header break something ?

I believe this issue will be resolved once we resolve issue 0.

[HK] I agree, lets resolve issue 0.

Note also Weiming and I had a discussion on the batching issue which
we can go into later.
LFB identification belongs to the message body, not the header. 

[HK] Great, we agree on that then.

The idea of the type is to ID the message which i believe is important
not
just for debuggability.

[HK] I can live with a type field in the header, but I am sure you will
realize eventually that this is redundant information and not needed in
the header.

Now of course you could take the LFB instances such as an
index of a nh table and give that a NE-universal id; but that would
require a huge address space (maybe 128 bits may be insufficient).

[HK] Let me clarify something here...LFB type is something like IPv4
Fwdr, LFB ID identifies an instance of such an IPv4 Fwdr, thus it is a
reference to a single IPv4 Fwd table on the FE. Individual instances in
this table will be further identified using indexes or whatever the
model team defines, inside this table/LFB.

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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Mar 2004 17:33:58 -0500

> model team defines, inside this table/LFB.

Why do i think we are saying the same thing? ;->
Look at my other emails ;->
BTW, i dont understand all this confusion that has to do with
an ID being an OS PID. It may a result of me calling the field
PID. I hope my other emails clarified that.
Alex, i am not responding to your email hoping my last few emails
clarified this.

cheers,
jamal