[Nml-wg] About modelisation of the network description

[Freek Dijkstra]

Evangelos wrote about the "Model" object:

> Can we call them "Views" instead of "Models"? "Model" is a quite overloaded
> word, especially in a semantic context.
> 
> But otherwise, thanks for writing this up. This is really close to work 
> currently under development in the IDC project.

Currently, I see two concepts here: an (administrative) network domain, 
and a filtered view. The relational difference is that a device can only 
be part of ONE "domain", but part of MULTIPLE "views".

Evangelos, does that mean you like to have both a "domain" object
for grouping, and another "view" object that gives you a filtered view 
of the contents of this group? Or do you only want one "View" object 
that is just some grouping of network elements?

Do we need a third "network" concept for grouping, besides (or instead 
of) "domain" and "view"? If so, what would be the relation between 
devices and such "network" and how is that different from "domain" or 
"view"?

Did the IDC project made such choices already?

(My opinion: I like to see at least an (admin)domain object, and 
possibly a "view" object. I don't yet see a need for a "network" object 
different from a "domain" object. Nevertheless, Aaron presented exactly 
those two, and I love to hear that argument).


Aurélien Cedeyn wrote:

> For me, the "Model" object groups objects which have relation between each 
> other, they are "connected". Moreover, this group represent the network 
> itself with a particular point of view. I think that with this concept we 
> will be able to view cloud or a black-box as a network. Because whatever how 
> deeply you describe your network, some information will be masked.

I think that a "domain" object (with each device only part of one 
domain) can already have this black-box abstraction. However, the "view" 
object is more flexible, and allows either a more detailed view (a 
network domain with some more details described) or a more abstract view 
(two or three domains abstracted as a single cloud) -- I am not sure how 
that would work in practice though, so suggestions are welcome.


> "Does NML have to provide the extreme details of a real network such as patch panel ?"

My opinion: no, but it should be extensible enough so that someone may 
later do that. (Perhaps by describing them as "devices" without 
switching capability, or by introducing a new object).


Regards,
Freek

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/attachments/20080304/968423da/attachment.bin