Hi, On 4 Mar 2012, at 13:55, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Hi all,
Last Friday Jerry and I had a short conversation. Jerry's idea is to define recursive topologies, as he described in his slides to the list.
He convinced me that this is a great concept, as it allows for simple topology abstraction.
While I wholeheartedly support the idea, I like to describe the concept before giving a concrete proposal for changing the NML schema. 1. Connecting the (sub)topologies 2. Hierarchical identifiers 3. Updates and Versioning
Feedback is highly appreciated.
1. Connecting the (sub)topologies
I agree with this idea, and the option of defining aliases. This makes for a more stable inter-domain topology. I would suggest that we allow abstracted topologies to contain some hints regarding internal availability.
2. Hierarchical identifiers
No thanks.
3. Updates and Versioning
In the Automated GOLE experiments I've found that being able to see a version of the topology used would be a nice feature. Currently the demo still uses a centralized topology, so knowing the used version is more important. Still, knowing when your neighbor last updated their topology can help debugging issues. So I think it would be a nice feature to have, although not necessarily something that we'd include in the schema itself though. Jeroen.