Subject: [Forces-protocol] Add Route Example

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:41:47 -0700

Here are some examples for what our ForCES msg might look like...

Here is a TLV... (16 bits for T, 16 bits for L & variable len V)

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
     |          Type                 |               Length          | 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
     \                                                               \ 
     /                            Value                              / 
     \                                                               \ 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Add Route Msg....

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
     |                                                               | 
     |                       Common Header fields...                 | 
     |               Command Type = Config                           | 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          Type=LFB(or FE)attrs |               Length          | 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |Operation=Add(Del,DelAll,Update|              Flags            | 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                        LFB Type ID=IPv4 Fwdr                  | 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                        LFB Instance ID                        | 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                        Array of route entries                 | 
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The array of route entries will be defined by the FE Model team.
Actually I suspect, they will define an IPv4 Prefix and IPv4 NextHop LFB
and this msg will carry an array of prefixes and Nexthops.

For a reference example of the actual route structs, look at
http://www.npforum.org/techinfo/IPv4_IA.pdf

I will also try to find some more examples looking at our code here,

Hope this helps,
Let me know what you guys think ?

Thanks
Hormuzd

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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 May 2004 20:01:56 -0400

Hormuzd,
Thanks for posting this. some comments below.

> Here is a TLV... (16 bits for T, 16 bits for L & variable len V)

LFB Type ID, Type and even the operation should probably be the same
field (eg "addroute"). Best place maybe the T(ype) portion of the TLV
Although you may argue 16 bit may not be sufficient.
Also maybe a version field may be valuable to have.
The main header version is for the protocol and the version on TLV is
for the LFB.

> and this msg will carry an array of prefixes and Nexthops.

I hope the model team is not the driver for this. 
Agreed probably an array of prefixes would suffice with nexthop
indicess. I would see the nexthops as attributes described by TLVs but i
dont wanna digress because its an unrelated topic.

> http://www.npforum.org/techinfo/IPv4_IA.pdf

Thanks for posting this. I will scan and read it. I have my own opinions
of what the route messages should look like so i will want to see how
much in sync this is.

> Let me know what you guys think ?

I think in general it looks good. It doesnt matter how the route message
looks like as long as we can define the surrounding things.

cheers,
jamal

---

From: "Wang,Weiming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:20:56 +0800

Hormuzd, and Jamal,

I'm  glad you post the msg format, which is helpful for our progress.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>

Add Route Msg....

[Weiming] I suggest to let the Operation field as the TLV's Type field, that is,
to let Type = Add/Del/DelAll/Update/... instead of the LFB(or FE) attributes.
And as I also mentioned in the Event msg, I even suggest to separate the FE
attributes and LFB attributes in the Type, because the followed PDU format are
so different for both them. The reason not to use the LFB attributes as the Type
are:
1) The 16bits Type space may be not enough for all LFB attributes, just imaging
we'v left 16bits space for LFB type ID and LFB instance ID,  hence, we can
reasonably assume  the LFB attibute number will exceed the 16bits space very
easily.
2) I think there is a possibility in FE model to use XML or plain text instead
of IDs to describe the LFB attributes or FE attributes. In this case, we may not
be able to use them as the type IDs.
[/Weiming]

I will also try to find some more examples looking at our code here,
[Weiming]I also suggest you present a format for FE attribute op if it
convenient to you. For I think we may see more via the two formats then. Thank
you.

Hope this helps,

Thanks
Hormuzd

Cheers,
Weiming