I am wondering if it is possible to combine two definitions to come up with what you would like to see "If we had the concept of a "connected subgraph" of a domain or
topology, that might help with things.. "
for example: Domain Topology = connected subgraph of network elements within a domain. Physical Topology = connected subgraph defining the physical connections between the network elements .... Inder On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
On 14/12/2009 18:31, Evangelos Chaniotakis wrote:
To be the devil's advocate, this leads to a situation where, for example, a single GOLE that provides different services (i.e. lightpath and vlan and SDH with no translation/encapsulation/ multiplexing capabilities), will need to provide a separate "topology" per service, since the optical switch is not "connected" to the ethernet switch. Does that make sense? It looks unnecessarily complex to me.
You mean a GOLE that has an optical switch that is in no way connected to the ethernet switch, i.e. there is no cable running between them?
Then I'd say that they are actually two different GOLEs.
If we had the concept of a "connected subgraph" of a domain or topology, that might help with things.. a network provider would advertise a single topology object that would contain one or more of these.
We have to break things down into manageable chunks somehow. This is one that seemed most natural. I'm sure there are also examples of a single topology that is provided by multiple providers.
Jeroen. _______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg