[Nsi-wg] Topology virtualisation

[Cees de Laat]

I completely  agree with Erik-jan and this is according our earlier research, see my earlier mail.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 28, 2010, at 1:04 PM, Erik-Jan Bos <erik-jan.bos at surfnet.nl> wrote:

> Hello Gigi:
> 
> The way I see this is that a GOLE is policy free, and the policy of the
> connectivity crossing a GOLE is the "sum" of the policies of the two
> domains interconnecting/crossconnecting.
> 
> A link between two GOLEs, such as the IRNC 10G lambda between
> NetherLight and StarLight as an example, always has an owner: In this
> case the IRNC project's principle investigator, with his/her policy!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> __
> 
> Erik-Jan.
> 
> 
> On 06/28/2010 12:58 PM, Gigi Karmous-Edwards wrote:
>> Ok, sorry, I meant to say.... I assume that if a GOLE is policy free, 
>> then the connection between a
>> domain and a GOLE is really based on the policy of the domain that the 
>> GOLE is connecting to.
>> 
>> Victor, are you saying that the link between two GOLEs will be 
>> represented as a autonomous domain? If so, what NSA (NRM) would 
>> advertise this small-single-link domain? Whose policy would be advertised?
>> 
>> How does this work today with links between Starlight and NetherLight, 
>> or ManLAN and StarLight?
>> 
>> Gigi
>> 
>> Victor Reijs (work) wrote:
>>> Hello Gigi,
>>> 
>>> Gigi Karmous-Edwards wrote:
>>>> I too have the second picture in mind. I assume policy is advertised by
>>>> each domain, then path computation reads this policy as constraints
>>>> during path computation.
>>> 
>>> That is how I would see it indeed. A GOLE will, IMHO, just has a 
>>> specific property value.
>>> 
>>>> I assume that if a GOLE is policy free, then the connection between a
>>>> domain and a GOLE is really based on the domain connecting to the GOLE.
>>>> If this is a true statement, then is there any policy regarding links
>>>> interconnecting two GOLEs? whose policy is used if both endpoints of
>>>> this link are policy free GOLEs?
>>> 
>>> So in that case the link is another administrative domain (as it has 
>>> another policy)?
>>> 
>>> All the best,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Victor
>> _______________________________________________
>> nsi-wg mailing list
>> nsi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
> _______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg