[Nsi-wg] Thoughts on a basic topology model for NSI

[John Vollbrecht]

Hi Jerry --

I modified your model description to fit my understanding, and the understanding some of us came to in conversations in SLC last week..  I think they map pretty well, with some differences.  We should talk about it tomorrow.   It would be good to have a description in these forms that we all agree to.

Thanks - talk to you tomorrow.

John





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: topo.model.modifie.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 25088 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20100209/679e003b/attachment-0001.ppt 
-------------- next part --------------

On Feb 2, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Jerry Sobieski wrote:

> Hi all-
> 
> Relative to our brief discussion last week about topology and the NSI...
> 
> We want the NSI to offer more power and options to the "user" - to break out of the traditional carrier models for interacting with the user.   And I think our notions of Requesting aAgents and Providing Agents does that nicely and in a very elegant and scalable fashion.
> 
> However, we still have a lot of discussion about pathfinding - about how the agents will go about decomposing a path request into sub-paths for tree or chain model processing, or how we decide which NRMs are responsible for a particular end point, etc.  These all deal with *topology*.   There are quite a few notions we take for granted that require some sort of topology model.  For instance:  a Service Termination Point.  Whatever we end up caling it, the semantics of an STP is that it represents a point in the topology where a service connection can terminate.  We talk about capturing path information for monitoring...that requires a notion of how the topology is defined.   There are lots of topologically based assumptions we need to be more explicit about.
> 
> So this set of slides tries to capture some thoughts of mine on how we can pose a simple minimalist topological model sufficient for our NSI purposes.   I think it is consistent wth our thoughts and discussions.  And while it may bump into things that the NML WG is considering, I doubt a) we have come up with anything conflicting, and b) we certanly have not gone to the details of how to describe or distribute a topology database - we just assume we have a TopoDB and that is contains these basic constructs.
> 
> Comments are welcome...Its only a draft for consideration...
> Jerry
> 
> While the NSI protocol itself does not impose a particular topology on the transport plane or the agents that manage it, we do impose some notions on the Connections we construct - e.g. that the NSAs will, as a group, be able to construct and reserve a suitable path for the request.
> <NSI Topology Sketch.pptx>_______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg