Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] Add Route Example

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:56:43 -0700

Weiming,

Thanks for your comments. It seems like you misunderstood, see my
clarification below.
-----Original Message-----

    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                 |
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

[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]

[HK] By LFB or FE attrs in the Type of TLV, I mean the Type of the
message can either be Config LFB attributes or Config FE Attributes.
Since we only have Config in the Command Type in the Common header, we
need to distinguish between these 2 (as you had suggested before). So
there can only be 2 Types (FE, LFB) in the current T field of TLV. Does
that help clarify my intent ? It seems like you misunderstood this.

Regards
Hormuzd

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