February 2010 - nml-wg - lists.ogf.org

Informational Doc on translating NM-WG - NML
by Jeroen van der Ham 19 Apr '10

19 Apr '10

Hello, As some of you know, I've worked several weeks at Internet2 last year. While I was there, we worked on translating between the format the DICE IDC uses and NDL. I've written a report on this, detailling the translation and highlighting some issues that we encountered while implementing the translation. The document can be found at:http://staff.science.uva.nl/~vdham/research/publications/DCN-NDL-Translation.pdf I would like to submit this to the OGF as an informational document. I can do this personally, or from the NML WG. I would prefer the latter, does anyone disagree? Jeroen.

3 5

Proposals in document
by Freek Dijkstra 03 Mar '10

03 Mar '10

Inder, Jeroen, (and also to myself), Thank you once more for the proposal definitions on domain/topology and adaptation respectively. Could I ask for one more bit of your time? It would be beneficial for the discussions at OGF28 if these definitions are in the proposal by March 6th. Especially the proposal on domain/topology is "good enough" to be solidified in our deliverable. I'm certain that more discussion will pop up by the time we are going to created classes and attributes of these terms. I would very much appreciate it if you can copy and paste these definitions. If not, just let me know and I'll ask for another volunteer. The base document can be found at the svn repository: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/scm/do/listRepositories/projects.nml-wg/scm The emails with the proposals are here: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/2010-February/000444.html http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/2010-January/000438.html Regards, Freek

2 1

Definitions of "Adaptation", "AdaptationType" and "AdaptationService"
by Freek Dijkstra 22 Feb '10

22 Feb '10

Hello, As agreed on the last OGF, Jeroen and I have worked on the definitions of Adaptation, Adaptation Function and Adaptation Services. We propose four definitions to describe adaptation between network layers: Definitions: * Layer: A collection of Ports with common Characteristic Information (Characteristic Information is defined in ITU-T G800; we envision sublayers to be a separate layer too, but this is really up to technology-specific extensions). * AdaptationType: Abstract type describing the technology of embedding the data of one layer into the data of another layer. * AdaptationService: Adaptation capability in a topology or node. * Adaptation: Actual data transport function where data of one port is embedded in the data of another port. This can be a configured AdaptationService, or a static component. Properties: * AdaptationType is between two Layers (the client and server Layer) * AdaptationService is between two PortGroups (This is a new concept, see below) * Adaptation is between two Ports (the client and server Port) Context: * Adaptation and AdaptationService are part of a Topology or Node. * Adaptation can not be part of a cross-connect in a SwitchMatrix. * AdaptationService can not be part of a SwitchMatrixService. PortGroup concept: * PortGroup: a collection of zero or more Ports in a Node or a Topology. PortGroups can be used to describe between which Ports an Adaptation can be created from an AdapatationService, or similarly between which Ports a cross-connect can be made in a SwitchMatrix. Unidirectional: The above definitions for AdaptationService and Adaptation are for bidirectional adaptations (adaptation one direction and de-adaptation the other direction). We propose the following terms for unidirectional Adaptation and AdaptationService: * AdaptationSource: Embedding of data from a client port into a server port. ("adaptation") * AdaptationSink: Extraction of data out of a server port into a client port. ("de-adaptation") * AdaptationSourceService: AdaptationSource capability in a topology or node. * AdaptationSinkService: AdaptationSink capability in a topology or node. Regards, Freek and Jeroen

3 5

Re: [Nml-wg] Soliciting Public Comments on "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks"
by Freek Dijkstra 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

Dear all, Paola has made the requested changes (as suggested by Maciej Łabędzki and Greg Newby), and we have uploaded the final version to both http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/artf6433 and http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc14679. I suspect that Greg Newby will shortly assign a GFD-I number and publish the document as Grid Forum Document (GFD). I like to thank all contributors, and in particular the editor Paola Grosso for their work. I'm also pleased to see some recent proposals on the NML schema, so I encourage everyone to contribute to our second deliverable as well. Regards, Freek Dijkstra

1 0

Soliciting Public Comments on "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks"
by Freek Dijkstra 15 Feb '10

15 Feb '10

All, Our first deliverable, "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks", is now soliciting public comments. If you have any comments, or know anyone who like to comment on this document, please do so at http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327. The official public comment period ends Feb 15, 2010. My apologies to Paola Grosso for the very long delay (over a year) between the final editing and this public comments. This was mostly due to negligence and unfamiliarity of procedures on my part. With kind regards, Freek Dijkstra

5 12

Re: [Nml-wg] Topology Model and Pathfinding
by Jeroen van der Ham 11 Feb '10

11 Feb '10

On 10/02/2010 15:01, John Vollbrecht wrote: > If I don't have a link between networks, how do I describe the topology? > My suggestion has been that we describe the topology as being networks > interconnected at points (perhaps that is a bad name, but it is what > G.805 uses). Then it looks like your picture except that instead tying > the networks together with a link I tie them with a point. G.800 and G.805 also have links. Even if a stand alone link is a network, why can't we treat it as a special case and leave that in as a way to describe the inter-connection point between two networks? Basically two edge-points are requird to describe the interaction between two neighboring networks. I propose to use the ports at either end of a Link, which fits with our current network model. So far I have still not seen a convincing argument why this does not work, and why we would need to introduce additional terminology to describe the interaction point. Jeroen.

2 3

Re: [Nml-wg] Topology Model and Pathfinding
by Jeroen van der Ham 10 Feb '10

10 Feb '10

Hello John, I'm replying to the NML list, because I strongly believe that this issue must be discussed there. I think I understand your point now, I've created a diagram (attached) that I think describes the situation. The top view shows the physical topology, there are two networks, connected by an inter-domain link, which is owned by a third party. At the bottom I've tried to capture the way that you would like to describe this situation. Is that correct? I've attached the graffle file too so that you can correct it if I'm wrong. Jeroen. On 10/02/2010 09:51, John Vollbrecht wrote: > Hi Jeroen -- > > I cc some others in case they have comments. > > The issue is what I was discussing with you at JTs. I will try to > describe it better over the next few days. I certainly agree (as I said > when we discussed this) we should talk about it at OGF or before. > > Let me try a bit to describe the issue now - comments will be helpful in > getting a good description. > > I think the basic thing is that the atomic element in NSI is the set of > resources that is controlled by a NRM (network resource manager). Those > resources include switches/nodes a links in your terminology. For sake > of argument call such a set of resources a network. > > I think network could be covered in NML by calling such a set of > resources a group or a network group. For NSI (as I understand it) edge > of a network is a port, where a port may be on either a link or node in > NML terminology. This is where NML topology is missing a terrm - the > concept of a port at the end of a link. If that were there we could have > a simple mapping between NML and NSI concepts. > > Networks interconnect by joining ports together at a point. A point > might be considered to be where a male and female connector join - > either physically or logically. This is essentially the ASON (ITU > G.8080) model for interconnection of subnetworks. If NML has the concept > networks connecting at ports then I think there would be good mapping > between NML, NSI and ASON. > > If we use this model, then the NSI topology is of a set of networks > interconnected at points (or by connecting ports). By definition network > can (potentially) make a connection between any two points - so from a > graph point of view, a network is a vertex and a point or joined ports > are edges. > > Some conversation -- > To help resolve this and help possible conversation about it, I offer my > understanding of the NML issue with this. Please correct me if I have it > wrong. From a topology point of view NML assumes both ends of a Link are > the same and can be identified by the node to which they connect. Adding > ports to the end of links increases the number of items that must be > defined in a topology which makes definition of a topology longer and > longer. Further, since topology is well defined as between node and link > it is not clear why treating networks as supernodes with links between > them doesn't work. > > There may be some way to combine these that I haven't thought of or > understood yet. The problem I see from a inter-network (NSI/ ASON) point > of view is that links are resources that are part of one or another > network, not something outside them. From a reservation and provisioning > point of view each network must make a connection between its ports. > Ports from two networks are connected in a topology so when connections > across the networks are provisioned, the concatenated connection across > both networks is provisioned. > > Perhaps there is a way that topology and resources can be separated so > that links don't have to have names and are implied. From a provisioning > and monitoring view the control is certainly in a node, and so there may > be a difference between what is the resource termination point and the > control points. > > The one problem that having implied names doesn't seem to be able to > handle is when a link is a resource independent of nodes at either end. > In this case the link is a network which must be included in the > topology for resource reservation and scheduling even though it is not > included in the control topology. > > --- > I am interested in comments and suggestions - of course. I think this is > a very important concept to work through between groups. > > John > > > > On Feb 10, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> The NML set out to create a topology model that is sufficient to do >> pathfinding, at least on the topological level. I understand from the >> discussion with you that you feel that NML is currently not providing >> enough terminology to fulfill the needs of NSI pathfinding. >> I think it is important that this is discussed in the NML group. >> However I don't feel I have enough understanding of your problem to >> make a good case for it. Would you mind explaining your problem to the >> NML mailinglist? >> >> Thanks, >> Jeroen. > > >

2 4

Definitions of Topology, Domain and Network
by Jeroen van der Ham 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

Hello, As agreed at the last OGF, Inder and I have worked on the definitions of Network, Topology and Domain. - Topology: A connected graph of Network Elements The intended usage of this is to describe the thing that a network provider advertises to others as his network topology that is available for use. - Domain: An unordered collection of Network Elements managed under the same shared policy umbrella. This describes who or what is responsible for the Network Elements. - Network: no definition We had a discussion about the meaning of this term and in the end we had to conclude that is not possible to provide a workable definition for the term 'Network'. The term Network has become so widely used for so many diverse meanings that it is impossible to create a strict definition that everyone can agree on, while still expressing something useful. Inder & Jeroen.

6 13