[Nml-wg] Summary of today (Mon,) discussion
Freek Dijkstra
fdijkstr at science.uva.nl
Tue Feb 26 01:44:33 CST 2008
Paola Grosso wrote:
> In essence, we have tried to define the basic classes that go into the
> NML-WG schema, and began to define each class in more detail.
> We will use this as starting point for tomorrow discussion.
This work was presumably done after the formal meeting?
My compliments!!!! You seem to have been doing some real substantial work!
I have a few random comments (well, not truly random).
slide 2: Why this specific list of NDL basic classes? I personally would
not say Service is a basic class, while Layer, AdaptationFunction and
AdaptationProperty are.
slide 4: Nice. I never imagined paths and domains as similar concepts.
Paths are hard. It should be possible to refer to a path other than the
explicit ordered sequence of links (i.e. but simply by its name). A path
can also be an ordered sequence of other paths! Image a path through a
network, another path through another network. Those in series form a
new path as well. This is a useful to describe connections through
domains without knowing the details. Note that this description of a
path equals that of a "tandem connection" in ITU-T G.805 terminology,
not of a "network connection" (which is a special form of a tandem
connection). Paths as described here can only be used for "horizontal"
grouping (on the same layer), as opposed to "vertical" grouping
involving multiple layers -- see my comments at slide 7.
slide 4: Another term I've seen is technology domain. (which is slightly
different from the "Layer" concept, which I like to use). This is
arguable distinct from a VLAN domain (while a technology domain is only
a group of the same technology, a VLAN domain is a group of the same
interface with the same technology AND the same label).
-> Please refer to the Stitching Framework ([1] page 6): they have a
nice list of definitions for all these things.
slide 5: I recommend to distinguish between a device (the physical
thing) and its (switching) capabilities. That would allow us to describe
the (switching) capabilities of a domain without describing all details
of each physical device (which IMHO is a scalability nightmare). I like
to list that concept here.
slide 6: Are we talking about logical or physical interfaces? I strongly
argue for logical interfaces.
slide 6: NOT every interface belongs to a node: it may also be useful to
describe an interface of a domain, without telling the details of which
devices it is connected to.
(I'll knowingly skip other problems like the description of a port in a
patch panel, which may not be considered a device -- for our purpose
it's not relevant, although if you want to use this schema for inventory
management, it may be important.)
slide 6: I like a certain hierarchy in interfaces classes, from generic
to technology specific. However, I think that using the OSI layer at the
intermediate step is not a good idea. I prefer a "circuit switched
interface" and a "packet switched" interface as intermediate, or no
intermediate step. Also, I really oppose the term "Ethernet interface":
I think Ethernet deserve two interface subclasses: one for the
MAC-sublayer, and a different one for the VLAN-'sublayer'. But I'm
willing to compromise, especially if we could have an easy mapping from
our 'interfaces' / layers to GMPLS encodings.
slide 6: I strongly recommend to put as MUCH information in the generic
Interface class as possible, and only rely on subclassing if all else
fails. This is important to keep the schema as technology-agnostic as
possible.
Do we really need to subclass Interfaces? Do we really need to subclass
Devices? Do we really need to subclass Links? etc. etc. Perhaps the
answer is yes to two of these questions, or perhaps to all three. But I
like to remind people that in NDL we did NOT have to subclass ANY of the
these! Still, we are able to find paths through nearly all technologies,
including fiber, WDM, TDM, and VLANs. The only thing I needed subclasses
for are for Ethernet MTU size, and for fiber physical properties
(cladding of the fiber: multimode/singlemode, etc.).
slide 6: Note that rather than subclassing interfaces, subclassing link,
subclassing switch matrices (/devices) all to technology-specific
subclasses, I tried to come up with the notion of some sort of mix-in
class. E.g. WDMNetworkElement, with a WDMInterface a subclass of both
Interface and WDMNetworkElement, and a WDMDevice a subclass of both
Device and WDMNetworkElemenet, etc. My experience: while this idea
sounded nice, it didn't really work in practice. But again, do we really
need all subclasses?
slide 7: I have a little preference for a generic type BroadcastSegment,
with special case subclass Link. I have no strong preference for
unidirectional/bidirectional links, but would suggest to make it easy to
somehow group two unidirectional links to a bidirectional links. This is
only easy since in the GLIF community, people are used to talking about
bidirectional links.
slide 7: I am inclined to rant about the hierarchy of links here. I
really, really like to see a clear distinction between HORIZONTAL
grouping of links: a path as a series of links (G.805 terminology: a
tandem connection is a series of link connections and/or subnetwork
connections), and VERTICAL grouping of links: a layer /n/ link is a "sum
of" adaptations and a layer /n-1/ path. (G.805 terminology: a link
connection at a server layer is composed an adaptation source and sink
with a netwerk connection on the client layer; where a network
connection is a *terminated* tandem connection). The logic between these
two groupings is distinct, and I really like us to adopt the G.805
concepts (though I'm fine sticking to the current terminology).
-> Please refer to the concept of VERTICAL hierarchies in NDL (using
adaptation functions) [2] and refer to the concept of HORIZONTAL
hierarchies in cNIS [3].
slide 8: what is a node? Is a device a node? Is a domain a node? If a
domain can be a node, the second bullet is not true anymore.
slide 9: I would recommend to the working group not to define services
for the time being. That concept is part of the control plane, while I
think our focus should be on the data plane for now. That said, by all
means do include it if there are good counter arguments to do so. The
same argument more or less holds for defining Locations: I'm not opposed
to defining them (we did in NDL), but I much rather refer to work of
other specialized groups, rather than reinventing the wheel here.
slide 11: I very much applaud the choice for UML diagrams, with both an
RDF and XML schema. The use of UML prevents me from suggesting some
Really Neat Features of RDF, but for interoperability it would be a Good
Thing if I'm restricted in that sense ;-). That said, I'll gladly battle
for the use of opaque URI's as identifiers for all class instances!
Regards,
Freek
[1]
http://www.geant2.net/upload/pdf/GN2-07-066v5-DJ3-5-3-Report_on_Testing_of_Technology_Stitching.pdf
[2] http://www.science.uva.nl/research/sne/ndl/?c=12-Layer-Schema
[3] I got a file cnis_erdv0.14.png, but couldn't find a public reference
yet.
More information about the nml-wg
mailing list