[Nml-wg] PortGroups and Labels for IP/MAC

[Aaron Brown]

On May 9, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:

> On Labels:
> 
> What we have defined are "resource labels", eg.:
> * Ethernet VLAN
> * Ethernet I-SID
> * Frequency on DWDM / Wavelength on CWDM
> * ATM VPC
> * ATM VPI
> * SONET/SDH STS3c/STM/AUG-1 timeslot
> * MPLS shim label
> perhaps even:
> * SSID on a wifi
> * strand in a fiber bundle
> * ...
> 
> This label is used for both:
> * distinguishing between flows on a link (aka channels)
> * routing and switching (eg. "switch X will forward data from port 1,
> label 28 to port 4, label 42")
> 
> 
> So far so good.
> Now two issues.
> 
> 1. On PortGroups:
> 
> I assume that each Port is associated with a particular label. This is
> useful for monitoring, so we can distinguish between e.g. VLAN 120 and
> VLAN 42.
> 
> For path finding, it seem useful to describe a all possible ports (e.g.
> "all VLANs that can dynamically created". For this, I propose to
> introduce a "PortGroup": which logically can be expanded to many
> individual Ports.
> 
> The idea is still sketchy, but I like some input if this is a good
> approach. If so, I'll make a proposal.

In the OSCARS world, we've done this, using the label terminology, as "the available labels on a port". Thus, a single port might have a variety of available labels that could be used on that port. That approach makes more sense to me than introducing a new grouping concept for ports that don't currently exist.

Cheers,
Aaron

> 
> 
> 
> 2. On Destination Labels
> 
> The "destination labels", such as destination IP address or destination
> MAC address are also used for routing and switching, just like the
> resource labels above.
> 
> Hence I presumed that destination labels could be described the same way
> as resource labels.
> I'm longer sure that this is a good idea.
> 
> Recall that each Port is associated with exactly one label.
> 
> For a host with one IP address 2001:0DB8:B4C6:6AAE::1 this means that is
> has one ingress Port (for this IP address). On the other hand, it would
> have 2^128-1 egress Ports (for all possible IP addresses that is can
> send to).
> 
> This discrepancy between ingress Port and egress Ports seems odd to me,
> and makes me doubt that destination labels are the same things as
> resource labels.
> 
> As stated in my previous email, G.800 thinks it's a different beast: it
> associates resource labels with the adaptation, while is associates
> source- and destination labels with the termination.
> 
> That's all nice, but I'm still at loss how to describe source- and
> destination labels in NML and how to deal with them. If you have any
> idea (good or bad), please share it.
> 
> Freek
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg

Internet2 Spring Member Meeting
April 22-25, 2012 - Arlington, Virginia
http://events.internet2.edu/2012/spring-mm/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/attachments/20120510/65ba68cd/attachment-0001.html>