Subject: [Forces-protocol] FEM/CEM experiences

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 May 2004 08:31:40 -0400

This is to start the discussion on FEM/CEM interface as well as respond
to my action item from the concal.

The FEM/CEM interface is used for configuration of non-protocol
specific parametrization.
In our implementation we used it for:

1) 
a) selecting the number of connections to be used. Example:
"use 3 UDP multicast + one TCP connection"
b) describing details about each of the connections. Example 
"for UDP multicast connection 1 use IP address a.b.c.d port x"

The above could be seen as TML specific now - i am not sure if that gets
rid of the need for xEM.

2) In our case an FE could be issued a set of PIDs which are
a 32 bit number with 32 bit mask. This was because there were multiple
IDs that could be allocated per FE. In the current thought process we
are saying a FE can only have one ID; however, the FE could still obtain
its ID via the FEM. Example, in one specific hardware, the FE on bootup
could discover the slotID and chassi ID it was on and pass that to the
forces s/ware via the FEM.

3) Security parameterization such as keys etc. In order to have the
forces s/ware independent, we had decided but never implemented that the
security key exchanges will happen elsewehre and the forces s/ware will
be notified of the parametrization via FEM.

4) Connection setup parametes

Example "send up to 3 association messages each 1 second apart" Vs
" send upto 4 association messages with increasing exponential timeout".

5) probably the most important piece we found:

controlling the FE s/ware and parametrization throughout the life of the
FE s/ware daemon. This is also implies FEM-CEM interface was alive
during this phase.

a) The FE may get its own paramters localy (such as the ID to use. We
however found it useful to have the FEM in continous contact with the
CEM because we could dynamically change its parameters
(example adding a new connection to scale things).
b) As well we could shutdown a FE via its FEM interface etc.

Hopefully that captures it.

cheers,
jamal

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

---

From: "Weiming Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 22:18:10 +0800

Jamal,

Just one comment inline.

Cheers,
Weiming

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email-masked]>
> The above could be seen as TML specific now - i am not sure if that gets
[Weiming]Can we think the relation between xEM and TML as a father(xEM) and his
child(TML)? Father starts something, the child mainly use them, but in some
cases, may also change them more or less. They are not easy to be separated, and
even more hard to get rid of each other.