Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: Protocol/model discussion?

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:14:07 -0700

Joel, 

May be I am missing something :) At the end of this discussion,
we are hopefully on the same page. Pls see my comments below...

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern

Clearly, I am missing something.

The CE needs to know what the FE has in its tables.
If the different FEs are structured differently, the CE will have to
manage
them separately, so I will assume that we are dealing with similar FEs.
In that case, all the CE needs to do to use direct indexing is to keep
track, for each FE, of what slot it has put the forwarding entry in.
This
is not difficult for it to track.

[HK] I think you're talking about LFB tables (forwarding table), right ?
I didn't have all the context on your email exchange with Weiming, so
just checking.

Adding content based array's to the ForCES data model seems a
significant
complexity.  And it definitely adds complexity to the process of
selecting
elements.

[HK] Wouldn't this depend on what the data is ? For example, a prefix
table would have a prefix element in each entry, which can easily be
used as its index. Having a separate index there for each prefix entry
seems unnecessary to me.

regards
Hormuzd

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:15:50 -0400

I think it would be hard to justify using index in all cases of all
sorts of tables (just as it would be hard to justify that an
array models all tables).
It will make sense to use it in the case the FE also
understands its semantics as opposed to just the CEs view.
What i read Joel saying though is it doesnt matter if the FE table
understands what a index mean i.e its purpose is mostly for CEs house
keeping. If this is so Joel, could you extrapolate some more?

cheers,
jamal