I talked myself through this: PortGroup == VLAN range in LabelGroup Port == Single VLAN Label Therefore, the ampath and nordunet topologies are generated incorrectly as they are mixing up definitions. John On 2013-09-23, at 11:16 AM, John MacAuley <john.macauley@surfnet.nl> wrote:

I thought Label is a single value, so they vlan range cannot be specified in there. If it was a single port with one vlan then it might be viable, however, using a vlan range in the label file is semantically incorrect.

On 2013-09-23, at 11:04 AM, Hans Trompert <hans.trompert@surfnet.nl> wrote:

...

The same goes for the unidirectional port declarations, some use Port and Label:

<nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:netherlight-out"> <nml:Label labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/ethernet#vlan">1780-1783</nml:Label> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias"> <nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:nordu.net:1:in"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:Port>

While others use PortGroup and LabelGroup:

<nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:nordu.net:1:out"> <nml:LabelGroup labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet#vlan">1779-1799</nml:LabelGroup> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias"> <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:netherlight-in"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:PortGroup>

Can both ways be used?

HansT.

On 9/23/13 4:46 PM, John MacAuley wrote:

...

Can someone explain to me which of the following two segments are correct?

<nml:BidirectionalPort id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232"> <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232:in"/> <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232:out"/> </nml:BidirectionalPort>

or

<nml:BidirectionalPort id="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn"> <nml:name>ndn</nml:name> <nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn-in"/> <nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn-out"/> </nml:BidirectionalPort>

Should Port or PortGroup be used? We have a mix right now in our topologies.

Thanks, John

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:

On 23 Sep 2013, at 17:20, John MacAuley <jmacauley@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Therefore, the ampath and nordunet topologies are generated incorrectly as they are mixing up definitions.

I already notified Henrik and he is working on a fix already.

Indeed. I had already fixed the code, just hadn't gotten around to update the deployed version. Should be up now. I'll contact Jeronimo and have him update the ampath NSA. Best regards, Henrik Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net> Software Developer, NORDUnet

Unless you want to model using individual ports each with a single label… On 2013-09-23, at 11:22 AM, Jeroen van der Ham <vdham@uva.nl> wrote:

No, a single Port can only have a single Label, not a set of Labels.

On the other hand, a PortGroup can have a LabelGroup with just a single Label.

So it is recommended to use PortGroups and LabelGroups.

Jeroen.

On 23 Sep 2013, at 17:04, Hans Trompert <Hans.Trompert@surfnet.nl> wrote:

...

The same goes for the unidirectional port declarations, some use Port and Label:

<nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:netherlight-out"> <nml:Label labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/ethernet#vlan">1780-1783</nml:Label> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias"> <nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:nordu.net:1:in"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:Port>

While others use PortGroup and LabelGroup:

<nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:nordu.net:1:out"> <nml:LabelGroup labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet#vlan">1779-1799</nml:LabelGroup> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias"> <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:netherlight-in"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:PortGroup>

Can both ways be used?

HansT.

On 9/23/13 4:46 PM, John MacAuley wrote:

...

Can someone explain to me which of the following two segments are correct?

<nml:BidirectionalPortid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232">

<nml:PortGroupid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232:in"/>

<nml:PortGroupid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232:out"/> </nml:BidirectionalPort>

or

<nml:BidirectionalPortid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn"> <nml:name>ndn</nml:name> <nml:Portid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn-in"/> <nml:Portid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn-out"/> </nml:BidirectionalPort>

Should Port or PortGroup be used? We have a mix right now in our topologies.

Thanks, John

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

Found a few syntax errors in the ES.net and ManLAN topologies. I will get the fixes submitted and send an e-mail when completed. On 2013-09-23, at 11:47 AM, John MacAuley <john.macauley@surfnet.nl> wrote:

I also noticed the ampath topology references these ports from NORDUnet that are not in their topology:

<nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:aruba-in"/> <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:aruba-out"/>

John

On 2013-09-23, at 11:30 AM, John MacAuley <john.macauley@surfnet.nl> wrote:

...

Unless you want to model using individual ports each with a single label…

On 2013-09-23, at 11:22 AM, Jeroen van der Ham <vdham@uva.nl> wrote:

...

No, a single Port can only have a single Label, not a set of Labels.

On the other hand, a PortGroup can have a LabelGroup with just a single Label.

So it is recommended to use PortGroups and LabelGroups.

Jeroen.

On 23 Sep 2013, at 17:04, Hans Trompert <Hans.Trompert@surfnet.nl> wrote:

...

The same goes for the unidirectional port declarations, some use Port and Label:

<nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:netherlight-out"> <nml:Label labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/ethernet#vlan">1780-1783</nml:Label> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias"> <nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:nordu.net:1:in"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:Port>

While others use PortGroup and LabelGroup:

<nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:nordu.net:1:out"> <nml:LabelGroup labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet#vlan">1779-1799</nml:LabelGroup> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias"> <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:netherlight-in"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:PortGroup>

Can both ways be used?

HansT.

On 9/23/13 4:46 PM, John MacAuley wrote:

...

Can someone explain to me which of the following two segments are correct?

<nml:BidirectionalPortid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232">

<nml:PortGroupid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232:in"/>

<nml:PortGroupid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232:out"/> </nml:BidirectionalPort>

or

<nml:BidirectionalPortid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn"> <nml:name>ndn</nml:name> <nml:Portid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn-in"/> <nml:Portid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn-out"/> </nml:BidirectionalPort>

Should Port or PortGroup be used? We have a mix right now in our topologies.

Thanks, John

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

That is clear. So can you also semantically check the topology files? Because topologies that you earlier declared valid are in fact not correct. Cheers, HansT. On 9/23/13 5:22 PM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:

No, a single Port can only have a single Label, not a set of Labels.

On the other hand, a PortGroup can have a LabelGroup with just a single Label.

So it is recommended to use PortGroups and LabelGroups.

Jeroen.

On 23 Sep 2013, at 17:04, Hans Trompert <Hans.Trompert@surfnet.nl> wrote:

...

The same goes for the unidirectional port declarations, some use Port and Label:

<nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:netherlight-out"> <nml:Label labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/ethernet#vlan">1780-1783</nml:Label> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias"> <nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:nordu.net:1:in"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:Port>

While others use PortGroup and LabelGroup:

<nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:nordu.net:1:out"> <nml:LabelGroup labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet#vlan">1779-1799</nml:LabelGroup> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias"> <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:netherlight-in"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:PortGroup>

Can both ways be used?

HansT.

On 9/23/13 4:46 PM, John MacAuley wrote:

...

Can someone explain to me which of the following two segments are correct?

<nml:BidirectionalPortid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232">

<nml:PortGroupid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232:in"/>

<nml:PortGroupid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232:out"/> </nml:BidirectionalPort>

or

<nml:BidirectionalPortid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn"> <nml:name>ndn</nml:name> <nml:Portid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn-in"/> <nml:Portid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn-out"/> </nml:BidirectionalPort>

Should Port or PortGroup be used? We have a mix right now in our topologies.

Thanks, John

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

---

nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

SURFnet together with ESnet are building a path finding agent as well, so that is where all these questions are coming from. HansT. (Sent from some small mobile device) Jeroen van der Ham <vdham@uva.nl> wrote:

Hi,

On 23 Sep 2013, at 17:32, Hans Trompert <hans.trompert@surfnet.nl> wrote:

...

That is clear. So can you also semantically check the topology files? Because topologies that you earlier declared valid are in fact not correct.

I can't and because it's XML this is actually pretty hard to do.

Fortunately, Tomohiro's team is building a path finding agent, and they have to parse all the topology files to do it, so they are already on to this, and some results have been sent already to the AutoGOLE list, and spread privately.

Jeroen.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:

On the other hand, a PortGroup can have a LabelGroup with just a single Label.

So it is recommended to use PortGroups and LabelGroups.

So PortGroup+LabelGroup is essentially a superset of Port/Label? What is the purpose of the Port/Label combination? Best regards, Henrik Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net> Software Developer, NORDUnet

Ran into an interesting one today. This is more of a philosophical debate, but thought I would bring it up as others may ask the same question. There are unidirectional ports within the NML topology that are identified as connected to remote networks, however, the vlan ranges associated with them do not match. An example of this is one of the links between Netherlight and UvA: <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#hasInboundPort"> <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:uva:1:in"> <nml:LabelGroup labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet#vlan">1779-1799</nml:LabelGroup> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias"> <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:uvalight.net:2013:uvalight-netherlight"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:PortGroup> </nml:Relation> and <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#hasOutboundPort"> <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:uvalight.net:2013:uvalight-netherlight"> <nml:LabelGroup labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet#vlan">1780-1783</nml:LabelGroup> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias"> <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:uva:1:in"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:PortGroup> </nml:Relation> Obviously, I only have four STP's in each network that can form SDP between the networks, however, do the remaining 16 STP in Netherlight exist since nothing can ever utilize them? At the moment I toss these 16 potential STP on the floor since they provide no value, however, I wouldn't want to violate any unspoken rules ;-) John On 2013-09-24, at 7:09 AM, Jeroen van der Ham <vdham@uva.nl> wrote:

On 24 Sep 2013, at 12:46, Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj@nordu.net> wrote:

...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:

...

On the other hand, a PortGroup can have a LabelGroup with just a single Label.

So it is recommended to use PortGroups and LabelGroups.

So PortGroup+LabelGroup is essentially a superset of Port/Label?

What is the purpose of the Port/Label combination?

Single Port with a Single Label.

For example a static Port, or a statically configured Port.

Jeroen.

_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, John MacAuley wrote:

There are unidirectional ports within the NML topology that are identified as connected to remote networks, however, the vlan ranges associated with them do not match.

I think this is perfectly valid topology.

 An example of this is one of the links between Netherlight and UvA:

urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:uva:1:in 1779-1799

urn:ogf:network:uvalight.net:2013:uvalight-netherlight 1780-1783

It could be that one end was a router (with high flexibility for VLAN assignment), and the other end a switch where VLANs are a global resources, and hence some of them occupied. We have to consider that at some point these might be automatically generated.

Obviously, I only have four STP's in each network that can form SDP between the networks, however, do the remaining 16 STP in Netherlight exist since nothing can ever utilize them?  At the moment I toss these 16 potential STP on the floor since they provide no value, however, I wouldn't want to violate any unspoken rules ;-)

I think this behavior is correct, do the union of the two labels sets for demarcations (which is equivalent to dropping them, just another abstraction). Best regards, Henrik Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net> Software Developer, NORDUnet