Re: Model: Configured Neighbor Table

Hi, Fenggen

If we can't support parallel at least as referred in  neighbor
disvoery draft , I don't thinks it is sufficient.

在 06-9-29，Jia Fenggen<[email protected]> 写道：
> 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.
> >>
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>与联机的朋友进行交流，请使用 MSN Messenger:
> >>http://messenger.msn.com/cn
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 与联机的朋友进行交流，请使用 MSN Messenger:  http://messenger.msn.com/cn
>