February 2012 - nml-wg - lists.ogf.org

NSI topology
by Freek Dijkstra 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

Hello Guy, Inder, Tomohiro, cc: NML and NSI groups Last week Roman Łapacz (PSNC) took Jeroen's AutoGOLE network description and turned it into an XML format. (Thanks Roman!) In that process, we discovered a few differences how AutoGOLE and NML describe a network model. The main differences are: * NML links and ports are unidirectional, AutoGOLE links are bidirectional * NML uses links and ports to describe network connections (a proposal to describe only links, not the ports was not followed up), AutoGOLE only describes the ports (the links are described as connectedTo between the ports, but have no identifier of their own) Of course there are some commonalities: * Both implementations focus on logical connections, not physical connections. * Both implementations have provisionings to ensure a layer of abstraction in case attributes of a link or port change (in NML: the identifiers are opaque strings and have no inherent attributes; in AutoGOLE and NSI: the distinction between SDP and STP) In yesterday's NML conference [1], we briefly discusses these differences and commonalities. Now, I do not know to what aspect the NSI working group is building on the AutoGOLE work, and what the current issues are. I don't want to interrupt the considerable progress the NSI group is making, and certainly don't want to get in the way of more great demos such as previous year's AutoGOLE demos by interrupting their implementation timelines. I think it would be good for the NML group to: - educate the NSI working group participants on these differences. - listen to the NSI group if there are any problems with the topology as we specified. I realise that the above may take some valuable resources of the NML working group, but I am dedicated to make sure our groups are aligned. My question to you (as NSI co-chairs) is if you think the above is useful, and if so, when we can best discuss this. Would it be useful to discuss this with the whole NSI group, or a subset? I propose that we dedicate a timeslot for this work, and am happy to use the NML break-out slot for this purpose (if you like it earlier, we can see if we can ask Joel to re-arrange some slots). We can also use a NSI or NML telephone call to discuss this. Part of that work means for NML-WG to provide example topology descriptions (which can be done within a few days). But also means making code contributions, which I don't think the NML-WG has the resources for on short term notice. What is your recommended way forward? Regards, Freek Dijkstra [1] http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/2012-February/000815.html

1 0

Notes for teleconference Feb 16
by Jeroen van der Ham 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

Hi, Below are the notes of the call we had today. Attendance: Jason Zurawski (I2), Aaron Brown (I2), Freek Dijkstra (SARA), Yufeng Xin (Renci), Ilia Baldine (Renci), Roman Łapacz (PSNC), Jeff Boote (I2), Chin Guok (ESnet) We go quickly through the NML schema document. Freek has updated it to the required syntax and added a short section on Identifiers. Jeroen mentions that updates to the Introduction, Identifiers, and Example section are required, furthermore the definitions have to be checked against the latest schema diagram. We will move the diagram first, Jeroen will write actionpoints for what has to be fixed. Security section will be copied from the NM document and considered in light of current requirements. Roman has worked on the Automated GOLE example and created an NML-ized version. The last few days we have had a discussion on this and he has further improved on the translation, adding the xCard description. Jeroen notes that the NSI topology assumes bi-directional topology, while NML uses uni-directional topology. In time NSI will also support uni-directioanl requests, but this is not high on the list at the moment. We decide to continue with both models and try to define a mapping between them. next vs connectedTo: next is used for ordering in lists and should not be used outside of that context. We conclude that connectedTo is fine to be used, and does not clash with anything in the NML standard. This means that namespaced attributes don't seem to be necessary after all. Freek mentions that it would be good to have a discussion between NSI and NML regarding topology approaches. He will set this up. We discuss the concepts of STP and SDP. STP: Service Termination Point, the point to which the service is provided. These are typically mapped locally to actual network endpoints. SDP: is a pair of connected STPs which are in different domains. The current NSI does not actively use the SDP, although in the future they may be used to define extra intermediate points of network connections. Freek proposes to make a real NML version of the Automated GOLE example together with Roman and then compare the two approaches and see if we can map them. Action points: Jeroen to go through document and set up action points Jeroen to check the Security considerations of NM Freek to contact NSI to set up topology discussion Freek and Roman to create an NML version of the topology

1 0

Example topology of Automated GOLE
by Jeroen van der Ham 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

Hi, Attached is the topology that has been used for the Automated GOLE demonstration the last few months. This is really loosely based on NML, and adds some concepts which are needed for NSI. It is the whole topology of the demo, consisting of multiple domains. This is because we don't have a good distribution method yet. It should all be separate for each domain. Some terms used in the topology: NSA: Network Service Agent, program that does the provisioning NSNetwork: The Network that the NSA manages. STP: Service Termination Point, the point to which the service is provided. These are typically mapped locally to actual network endpoints. In this demonstration a suffix is used, in this case it maps to a specific VLAN. How that is actually implemented is up to the operator. Connectivity is only defined between networks, internally full connectivity is assumed. Jeroen.

5 32

Teleconference Feb 9th
by Jeroen van der Ham 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

Hello, Due to the cancelling of Jan 26th and Joint-Techs last week, I forgot to set a new date for the NML teleconference. I propose that we hold a meeting on Feb 9th at the usual time. UTC 16:30 = 8:30 Pacific = 11:30 Eastern = 17:30 Amsterdam I see an increasing outside demand to this group to provide a first draft. Also given the travel limitations of many contributors, I propose that we start doing teleconferences on a weekly basis now, until we finalize the first draft. Any objections? Jeroen.

4 8

Document update
by Freek Dijkstra 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

FYI, I just updated the nml-base document: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r24 | macfreek | 2012-02-16 16:01:06 +0100 (Thu, 16 Feb 2012) | 1 line Reformatted document to adhere to GFD.152 guideline ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r23 | macfreek | 2012-02-16 14:22:26 +0100 (Thu, 16 Feb 2012) | 1 line Add section on identifiers ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you have not checked it out, % svn co https://forge.ogf.org/svn/repos/nml-base You probably need your Gridforge username and password. Regards, Freek

1 0

Presentation on the GLIF questionnaire results
by Jeroen van der Ham 09 Feb '12

09 Feb '12

Hi, As promised here are the results from the GLIF questionnaire. Jeroen.

1 0