W dniu 2012-07-20 15:31, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
On 19-07-2012 16:02, Roman Łapacz wrote:
An example updated. Available in the repo (nml-examples/201207-groups-and-labels). Any comments are welcome. Seems good, only a few small issues caught my eye:
<nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:A:port_ge-0.2.9-out"/>
[...]
<nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:A:port_ge-0.2.9-out">
The all nml:Port for this object should be a nml:PortGroup.
I thought that Port inside Relation and BidirectionalPort can represent referenced PortGroup. I can change that.
At least, I presume you want to model the VLANs over these links, not necessarily the underling Ethernet layer?
Some holds for <nml:Link id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:domainy-domainx"> (I think you want to model this as a LinkGroup).
I briefly wondered if the following is allowed, if you make this change, but I don't see why not:
<nml:BidirectionalLink id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:domainx-domainy-domainx"> <nml:name>Link between domain x and domain y</nml:name> <nml:LinkGroup idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:domainx-domainy"/> <nml:LinkGroup idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:domainy-domainx"/> </nml:Link>
Seems reasonable because there's a range on vlans in this case.
Note that in your example, there is no cross connect between a VLAN in port ge-1/0/9 and VLAN 1501 of port ge-1/0/8. Not really suprising, since you have non-matching VLANS, but I wondered if this was on purpose.
Yes. I didn't want to do the cross in this example. But it can be presented in an other one (good candidate; I think the more examples presenting various setups the better). The file updated. Roman
Nice use of isAlias by the way.
(btw. I've done few minor updates in the RNC schema as well) Thanks. I still suck at reading RNC, so I'm going to read this in detail after two more iterations of the draft document.
Freek