[Nsi-wg] Topology virtualisation

[Gigi Karmous-Edwards]

So, how is this modeled? Victor suggests having the link between two 
GOLEs as a single domain? How was it done previously?


I think the key question that started this debate was: Are GOLEs 
significantly different from Domains such that we need to model them 
differently?  Or can we use the same object for a domain as GOLE and 
just add special properties to the object when it is a GOLE?

IMHO, I do think the role of GOLEs are different enough that they 
require a different representation in our topology model. I think this 
way because of their behavior during path computation.

Gigi

Cees de Laat wrote:
> 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
>>