Re: Model: Configured Neighbor Table

Yes,I agree with you on that we need three field if we want to support 
parallel connection between two FEs.
Yours,Fenggen
>From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Model: Configured Neighbor Table
>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:26:01 -0400
>
>We actually want three fields, in case there are multiple 
>adjacencies:
>neighbor FE
>Interface to neighbor
>Neighbor Interface (the interface on the neighbor we are talking 
>to.)
>
>Where the interfaces are identified by name.
>
>Other than that minor detail, you are correct.  If it were not for 
>the possibility of multiple parallel interfaces between two FEs, we 
>would not even need the neighbor interface.
>
>Yours,
>Joel
>
>At 09:17 PM 9/28/2006, Jia Fenggen wrote:
>>hi,joel:
>>   As is saying:It is intended to allow an FE to be configured with 
>>information about neighbor FEs.The configured neighbor table is 
>>used to configure static FE topologys,and because CE could get the 
>>specified address info about the neighbors from LFB such as port 
>>LFB,so I think we could just reserved two field Neighborid and 
>>Neighbor interface and let CE get other info by itself,what do you 
>>think?
>>Yours,Fenggen
>>>From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
>>>Reply-To: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
>>>To: [email protected]
>>>Subject: Model: Configured Neighbor Table
>>>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:57:29 -0400
>>>
>>>--- original note:
>>>The configured neighbor table (section 5.3.4) is probably wrong.
>>>This table is NOT intended to represent information from discovery 
>>>protocols.  It is intended to allow an FE to be configured with 
>>>information about neighbor FEs.
>>>
>>>[Prejudicial aside: I have argued on the list that this is not 
>>>necessary.  I lost the argument, so I can not simply remove the 
>>>section.]
>>>
>>>I need some input on what to put here.
>>>
>>>Yours,
>>>Joel M. Halpern
>>>---
>>>
>>>I had two people suggest removing this.  (I would count as three.)
>>>Failing removing, one of the people observed that the CE 
>>>presumably has IP and MAC address infromation from the identifier 
>>>FE and FE Interface.  Therefore, the suggestion was to remove 
>>>those fields.
>>>One person asked to keep those fields.
>>>
>>>In the absence of any better discussion, I am removing the fields.
>>>I agree that they are redundant, and I have to do something.
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>涓虹杩琛浜ゆ锛璇蜂娇 MSN Messenger:  
>>http://messenger.msn.com/cn

_________________________________________________________________
涓虹杩琛浜ゆ锛璇蜂娇 MSN Messenger:  http://messenger.msn.com/cn