On 16/12/2009 15:12, Aaron Brown wrote:
A question still open is the definition of "connected"? Is it a literal connected graph, or does it mean connected such that folks could actually somehow make circuits to get from any point in the graph to any other point (ignoring how they know that reservations and the like can happen)?
For example, say someone has a switch with sonet ports and ethernet ports and that switch connects to two other nodes, one via ethernet and one via sonet. Is the implication that the node connected via ethernet can connected to the node connected by SONET? If not, is that a connected graph for these purposes, or are there two separate topologies (the SONET one and the Ethernet one)? Relatedly, if a topology is disjoint due to solely to switching capabilities instead of cabling, is that two separate topologies or a single topology?
I think that "connected" is indeed a term that we should define properly. I would say that for "connectedness" it has to be possible for a circuit to be made between ports ot make it "connected". It does not have to be a terminated connection, so it should be possible to come in on Ethernet on one side and SONET on the other. Jeroen.