On 10/02/2010 15:01, John Vollbrecht wrote:
If I don't have a link between networks, how do I describe the topology? My suggestion has been that we describe the topology as being networks interconnected at points (perhaps that is a bad name, but it is what G.805 uses). Then it looks like your picture except that instead tying the networks together with a link I tie them with a point.
G.800 and G.805 also have links. Even if a stand alone link is a network, why can't we treat it as a special case and leave that in as a way to describe the inter-connection point between two networks? Basically two edge-points are requird to describe the interaction between two neighboring networks. I propose to use the ports at either end of a Link, which fits with our current network model. So far I have still not seen a convincing argument why this does not work, and why we would need to introduce additional terminology to describe the interaction point. Jeroen.