Re: Model: Configured Neighbor Table

Hi, Joel

I remember that we suggest remove it from this section. But if we want
to keep it, I think we should add Address part. (If neighbor interface
part can't
include it )

So it looks four field.
neighbor FE ID
Interface to neighbor
Neighbor Interface
Neighbor address (but I don't like to divide it into network or mac)

Regards
Xiaoyi

2006/9/29, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]>:
> 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
>