[Nsi-wg] NML topology

[Jerry Sobieski]

Wonderful!  Consensus...ahhh:-)

This is good Inder and Gigi.  (quite out of character- I have nothing to 
add:-)

Jerry


Gigi Karmous-Edwards wrote:
> Inder and All,
>
>
> I also agree with all the below statements, with the exception that an 
> "NSA must include RM capabilities". I can imagine an NSA that serves 
> to process and break up a single request from a requester agent and 
> then use the NSI to make sub-requests to other NSAs that do have RM 
> capability. In this example the first NSA does not have resources that 
> it directly manages and it also does not manage other NSAs.
>
> In this way an NSA can be a neutral entity (broker) that is not 
> associated with network resources.
>
> Thanks,
> Gigi
>
> Inder Monga wrote:
>>> I think owned and controlled are synonymous for our purposes - even 
>>> if the physical device interface is delegated to a subordinate 
>>> function (e.g. an RM) it is still under the control and management 
>>> of the NSA.
>>
>> I agree with your comments. 
>>
>> Let me try to re-iterate the conclusions, so it can be captured in 
>> the Architecture Document:
>>
>> - There can be only one owner of the resource that 
>> controls/manages/provisions the resource. This is known as the 
>> Resource Manager.
>>
>> - All others can only "request" access (provision, schedule, reserve) 
>> to that resource from that resource manager (RM)
>>
>> - The service "request" interface is "Network Service Interface" (NSI).
>>
>> - NSI + RM = NSA. This does not mean they have to be the same 
>> software module or function. The two functions can be distributed, 
>> but for the outside world looking in, NSA includes the RM capability. 
>>
>> - ONE NSA can manage  MULTIPLE local RM's. The interface between NSA 
>> and RM MUST NOT be a publicly accessible interface. An RM can ONLY be 
>> controlled by a SINGLE NSA. 
>>
>> - An NSA can decompose the service request to multiple sub-requests 
>> and send them to other NSAs. An NSA that decomposes the requests, 
>> MUST compose the responses and respond to the original service request. 
>>
>> Inder
>>
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2010, at 5:46 AM, Jerry Sobieski wrote:
>>
>>> Comments in line:
>>>
>>> Guy Roberts wrote:
>>>> Freek,
>>>>
>>>> Some interesting questions, here are my thoughts your questions-
>>>>
>>>> Requirement 1:  In my opinion each network resource should be owned by only one NSA.  However, one NSA can own many resources.  I guess this means that 'owned' and 'controlled' are synonymous.  Though perhaps the distinction could be that a passive object (eg patchcord link) can only be owned and not managed?
>>>>   
>>> It seems to me even a passive patch cable is still managed - what 
>>> happens if it breaks?   I think the issue here is that it is a 
>>> component of a network, and b/y definition/ it is managed by the 
>>> associated NSA.  (What that NSA needs to do - if anythng- to control 
>>> or manage the patch cable is a separate issue. )   Also, often in 
>>> this whole conflagration we find that one agent controls the port on 
>>> one end of a link and another agent controls the port on the other 
>>> end, and these two separate objects must *MUST* correspond to one 
>>> another, ..so the configuration is negotiated via protocols and the 
>>> link in-between simply reflects this agreed config.   It is sort of 
>>> moot who actually owns the resource, or "controls" it, as that agent 
>>> simply has the priviledge of writing the negotiated configuration 
>>> into the device...
>>>
>>> I think owned and controlled are synonymous for our purposes - even 
>>> if the physical device interface is delegated to a subordinate 
>>> function (e.g. an RM) it is still under the control and management 
>>> of the NSA.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nsi-wg mailing list
>>> nsi-wg at ogf.org <mailto:nsi-wg at ogf.org>
>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
>>
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> nsi-wg mailing list
>> nsi-wg at ogf.org <mailto:nsi-wg at ogf.org>
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
>>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20100223/20a1cf8f/attachment.html