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

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 19:01:15 -0700

Jamal,

Thanks for your comments. Pls see my replies below.
-----Original Message-----

> 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                 |

>      .                                                               .
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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.
[HK] Yes 16 bits might be insufficient for this. However, I could
combine LFB Type (16 bits, including version no), Operation (8 bits),
Flags (8 Bits) into a 32-bit field. Does that sound good ? Let me know

Thanks
Hormuzd

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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 May 2004 09:15:09 -0400

>From your comments to Weiming i now understand the meaning of type.
16 bits is a little too much for that. So having it as:

TYPE := ATTR_TYPE(4 bits max): VERSION (4 bits): OPERATION(8 bits)
i think should suffice.

4 bits are overkill for ATTR_TYPE since you only have it belonging
to either an FE or LFB. 

On the topic of consistency, what i was asking Weiming is whether the
TLV you posted should suffice or not.

Also: I dont think it would make much of a difference whether the T in
TLV is global or per message. Infact on second thought I think that
it may make sense to have it as local as proposed by Weiming since it
gives us more room.

cheers,
jamal

---

From: "Weiming Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 22:16:55 +0800

Jamal,Hormuzd as well,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email-masked]>

> TYPE := ATTR_TYPE(4 bits max): VERSION (4 bits): OPERATION(8 bits)
[Weiming]I'm quite with this format, only with the VERSION here, I'm not sure if
we can have it put in the V place. Also I'm not very sure if it is the version
for an attribute or for operation here. Moreover, if we need the version in the
end, I suppose if we can put it at the beginning of T, that is,
VERSION:ATTR_TYPE:OP.

> 4 bits are overkill for ATTR_TYPE since you only have it belonging
[Weiming]I suppose if we can define an ATTR_TYPE as 'Vendor' for vendor support
here. Anyway, 2 bits is enough. we may leave 2 bits as reserved.

> it may make sense to have it as local as proposed by Weiming since it

Cheers,
Weiming