Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Evangelos Chaniotakis wrote:
I'm on the fence as to whether we need a separate "network" concept. We might need to model administrative domains that run multiple independent networks.
You totally convinced me. So:
DOMAIN = administrative domain = an organisational entity that is responsible for the operational control of resources (including network resources)
NETWORK = a collection of network elements that behaves as a single resource (it is possible to describe the functionality without exposing the internal implementation or detailed internal limitations)
I don't know how to describe VIEW. Evangelos, Aurélien, do you have suggestions?
I would say that a Network is a collection of Views, and a View is a collection of Network Elements. I don't think either "behaves like a single resource" but maybe we're thinking of different things. <snip>
Shouldn't that be:
- Domain --- Network ----- View (type = "monitoring") -------- Network Element -------- Network Element ---------- Network Element -------- .... ----- View (type = "controlplane") -------- Network Element -------- Network Element -------- .... ----- View (type = "export") -------- Network Element ---------- Network Element -------- Network Element -------- .... --- Network ------ ....
A few questions about your tree. * May a single network element occur in multiple views (I assume so) Yes. * Must a network element be part of only one domain (I assume so) I would say yes. Although there's certainly some real-world scenarios where multiple administrative domains share some infrastructure, I don't
Well, I was still on the fence about the Network element, that's why I didn't include it there. But I agree with the above; I think we should have Views under Network. think we should model this.
* Can a view consist of network elements in multiple domains? (I really don't know about this one, but if true, a view can also be higher in the tree than a network)
I would say no. It's certainly conceivable, but let's keep Views under Network.
Given your tree, am I correct to assume these relations: domain:network = 1:many (each network is under control of only one domain) network:view = 1:many (a view can only contain network elements within a single domain) network element:view = many:many (a network element can occur in multiple views) network element:network = many:1 (a network element can only be part of one network) This looks right to me.