On Feb 10, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
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? well, it isn't really a special case as far as I can see. the picture I added shows that.
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. yes - you could say there are ports on either side connected at a point. ou 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. I am sorry -- but I don't see how your solution works. Could you show a topology of connected networks that doesn't include links? It seems to me that you are trying to force fit something that is slightly off.
I am not sure how to resolve this without exploring possibilities. Do you think that my suggestion for how to create a graph with networks as vertices and points as edges will not work? If it will work is there a way to fit it into the NML model or would the model have to change to accommodate it? John