[Nml-wg] Topology Model and Pathfinding

[John Vollbrecht]

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