Re: question on draft-lfblb-draft.txt?

Given that "external port" doesn't always mean 
the same thing, depending upon why one is asking 
the question, I don't think we can fold a descriptor into the FE Object.

So, for now, I think the best we can do is to 
have the CE look at the pre-existing LFB 
topology.  And for some level of the meaning of 
port / interface, the FE needs to create the 
corresponding LFBs for itself.  Probably with 
their state set to "administratively 
disabled."  But this seems to be an 
implementation issue, not a standardization 
issue.  (Even with conventional routers there is 
sometimes an issue of knowing what interfaces can be enabled.)

Yours,
Joel

At 10:35 PM 9/21/2006, Jia Fenggen wrote:
>Thank u for the answer.But i think just change 
>the model draft is probably not enough because 
>in ForCES Requirment document Port is used to 
>reference to the external interface of the FE.
>another question about Port LFB:
>In port LFB I think we could on one aspect 
>define the properties which relate to its 
>function in the data flow,like receving packet 
>from media ,on another aspect,we can define 
>configurable properties like IP address,and we 
>should abstract the common properities and 
>define them in the Generic Connectivity LFB,and 
>for specified media port,we could define the proper inherited LFB,am I right?
>still,In current model,we have no way to get how 
>many external ports on an FE,should it be 
>defined in FE Object LFB or just let CE defer it 
>from the port LFB instance it detected by LFB 
>topology query,could u give me some light on this,thanks!
>Yours,Fenggen
>
>
>>From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
>>To: "Jia Fenggen" <[email protected]>
>>Subject: Re: question on draft-lfblb-draft.txt?
>>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:30:44 -0400
>>
>>The generic connectivity LFB in the library 
>>draft serves the same purpose as the Port LFB 
>>described in the Model draft.  I changed the 
>>name because the term "port" is so over-used in 
>>our work.  I should probably change the terminology in the model draft as well.
>>
>>Yours,
>>Joel M. Halpern
>>
>>At 01:25 AM 9/21/2006, you wrote:
>>>hi,joel:
>>>   I am now working on abstracting some LFBs 
>>> and hope to get your help,I also think it's 
>>> very necessary for us to create a base LFB 
>>> library,but i suspect that not so many 
>>> persons are XML experts,so should we allow 
>>> discussion in plain text.I have a question about port LFB in Model doc,
>>>"The FE model can be used to define a Port LFB 
>>>class and its technology-specific subclasses 
>>>to map the physical port of the device to the 
>>>LFB model with both static and configurable 
>>>attributes.  The static attributes model the 
>>>type of port, link speed, etc.  The 
>>>configurable attributes model the addressing, 
>>>administrative status, etc." in 
>>>draft-lfblb-draft.txt you have defined a LFB 
>>>named "Generic Connectivity LFB" and says "It 
>>>only captures those properties which relate to 
>>>its function in the data flow.  (So, for 
>>>example, it does not provide for the IP 
>>>address associated with this interface, or 
>>>even an indication as to whether there is such 
>>>an address.)" could you explain to me what's 
>>>difference between the Port LFB and Generic Connectivity LFB?
>>>Yours,Fenggen
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Ãâ·ÑÏÂÔØ MSN Explorer:   http://explorer.msn.com/lccn
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>ÓëÁª»úµÄÅóÓѽøÐн»Á÷£¬ÇëʹÓà MSN Messenger:  http://messenger.msn.com/cn
>