Jeff,
‘…wouldn't it completely be an implementation issue for that federating entity…’ – yes, agreed, so we don’t need to mention this in the NSI protocol.
Guy
From: Jeff W. Boote [mailto:boote@internet2.edu]
Sent: 13 April 2011 16:34
To: Guy Roberts
Cc: 'Inder Monga'; nsi-wg@ogf.org
Subject: Re: [Nsi-wg] usage of STPs
Why would this need to be part of a protocol? If a federating network is abstracting a child network's topology, then wouldn't it completely be an implementation issue for that federating entity to keep track of the mapping between the topology it advertises as part of itself and the 'real' topology that is really part of the child. What am I missing?
And I think it is a non-starter to say network id's are specified with no syntax. We need globally unique in this space, and if we are not going to maintain some kind of registry that implies a specific syntax to do that. URNs are already widely accepted. If we want to do something different, we should have very good reasons for that.
jeff
On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Guy Roberts wrote:
Inder,
The idea behind the STP address swapping is to allow a federating NSA to re-advertise child NSA’s as its own resources. This allows a federating NSA to hide the complexity of child Networks and present all resources as part of a single federating Network.
Guy
From: Inder Monga [mailto:imonga@es.net]
Sent: 13 April 2011 14:51
To: Guy Roberts
Cc: nsi-wg@ogf.org; 'Jerry Sobieski'
Subject: Re: [Nsi-wg] usage of STPs
Guy
Just for discussion today - URN has been a representation of STPs that has had a lot of support on the mailing list. We should talk about that option as well.
The federating NSA and swapping is a new idea - I am not sure that has been discussed before. Please elaborate on what the need for that is?
Inder
Guy Roberts
April 13, 2011 2:20 AM
Hi Jerry,
Based on our discussion yesterday I will try and summarize the current thinking on STPs:
STP is a tuple which is formed as: Network_Id:Local_id
where:
Network_id is an string (unformatted - no syntax specified) which
identifies a group of resources available to a single service. Each
Network has an associated NSA, i.e. there is a 1:1 relationship
between and NSA instance and a Network. A single stage lookup is
required to find the address of the NSA from the Network_id.
Local_id is a string (unformatted - no syntax specified) which
identifies a local resource (or endpoint).
A federating NSA has the option (not compulsory) of swapping the
Network and Local parts of the STP. Both parts must be swapped (not
just the network part) this removes the need for Local_id to be
globally unique. (this is like MLPS label swapping)
Does this align with your view?
Guy
_____________________________________________________________________
** Guy Roberts, PhD Network Engineering & Planning
* * Tel: +44 (0)1223 371300
* * City House Direct: +44 (0)1223 371316
* 126-130 Hills Road Fax: +44 (0)1223 371371
* Cambridge
* CB2 1PQ E-mail: guy.roberts@dante.net
D A N T E United Kingdom WWW: http://www.dante.net
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
nsi-wg mailing list
nsi-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
--
Inder Monga
510-486-6531
http://www.es.net
Follow us on Twitter: ESnetUpdates/Twitter
Visit our blog: ESnetUpdates Blog
Facebook: ESnetUpdates/Facebook
_______________________________________________
nsi-wg mailing list
nsi-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg