On 28/01/2010 21:16, John Vollbrecht wrote:
Thanks Jeroen -
I include Freek -- perhaps this should go the the list?
additional questions below --
On Jan 28, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
On 27/01/2010 18:52, John Vollbrecht wrote:
* 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.
I would think this could happen in a port, or at least be specific to a port. Is that possible?
The AdaptationService is indeed specific to a port, as we define later. However, often in a Node there are a group of ports with the same AdaptationService, i.e. the capability of adapting one layer into another. We feel that without loss of generality you can state that an AdaptationService exists between a group of (logical) ports, and another group of (logical) ports, instead of specifying this for each of the ports individually.
this seems fine -- I tend to think that a generic connection at some level (e.g. ethernet) might be carried internally in a provider as VLAN/Ethernet and perhaps delivered as ethernet/ MPLS for example. In that case the generic connection is adapted to VLAN/ MPLS, then to ethernet/MPLS. So adaptation is at a port, not between them.
The idea is that the adaptation takes place in a physical port, but we model it using two logical ports.
When a link with multiple labeled sub-links connects to a port with multiple labeled subports on a node -- What is the way that labeled links are concatenated to labeled ports -- is that cross connect? If not, what is it?
Labeled links are directly associated with labeled (logical) ports.
Multiplexing and Demultiplexing could then be necessary to describe this properly, cross-connect and all. However, we haven't defined that yet.
so there is a port on a node. but if a topology edge is the end of a link, what is that called? do the ends of links have names? I have started thinking they should have names (like ITU, they have ports perhaps), and where two ports connect is a point.
I understand this is not defined yet - and of course this is the basic thing that a lot so NSI is concerned with. Which is ok -- just need to be clear.
I am not sure yet whether Link-ends will have names. We currently have Link objects, describing unidirectional links, with a source and a sink relation, so names for the ends may not be necessary. Jeroen.