Re: Model: Configured Neighbor Table

hi,xiaoyi,
   sorry,I haven't have the lately discovery draft,could you state it 
clearly what parallel ability it support in discovery draft,i think those 
field in configured neighbor are enough for us.
Yours,Fenggen
>From: "Guo,xiaoyi" <[email protected]>
>To: "Jia Fenggen" <[email protected]>
>CC: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Model: Configured Neighbor Table
>Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:24:05 +0800
>
>Hi, Fenggen
>
>If we can't support parallel at least as referred in  neighbor
>disvoery draft , I don't thinks it is sufficient.
>
> 06-9-29锛Jia Fenggen<[email protected]> 锛
>>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
>>

_________________________________________________________________
璐逛杞 MSN Explorer:   http://explorer.msn.com/lccn/