[Nsi-wg] Service Termination Points

[John MacAuley]

If we remove the hop-by-hop capabilities from the reservation request, do I also remove it from any queries?

On 2011-03-13, at 1:06 PM, Chin Guok wrote:

> I'm fine just specifying the source and destination in the initial implementation.  However I think that as we evolve the protocol, being able to specify "mid-point" STPs will be useful.
> 
> If I recall correctly, the issue was that the end user may not be able to see the "mid-point" STPs and thus is unable to verify the path.  However as we start adding other services (i.e. monitoring, etc), lack of visibility may not be an issue.
> 
> - Chin
> 
> --On March 12, 2011 11:51:20 PM -0500 John MacAuley <john.macauley at surfnet.nl> wrote:
> 
>> I am okay not to specify anything other than the source and destination,
>> but was this not the whole discussion around not routing traffic through
>> certain locations by specifying the route?  It resulted in the trust
>> discussion.
>> 
>> 
>> Does anyone else have strong opinions on the topic?
>> 
>> 
>> John.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2011-03-12, at 11:42 PM, Jerry Sobieski wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi John-
>> I know we've had long discussions about path objects.   But I am not so
>> sure they are necessary...
>> 
>> If we can make two concatenated connections and treat them as one, then
>> why do we need to specify loose hops?
>> We can instead just issue two reservation requests, right?   If so, this
>> would substantially simplify the request structure.  And so far, I've not
>> heard of any use case that multiple reservations would not work for
>> transit routing.
>> 
>> ??
>> 
>> Jerry
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/12/11 10:35 PM, John MacAuley wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Taking Jerry's definition and Tomohiro's note not to use domain or
>> endpoint I have defined the following three XML schema components:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  • A "Path Object Type" consists of at a minimum an "aSTP" and a
>> "zSTP", with an optional ordered list of "STP" defining the path through
>> the network.
>>  • An "STP Type" consisting of a mandatory "Network Id" string and a
>> mandatory "Local Id" string that uniquely identify the STP.  There is an
>> optional "Order" attribute that will only be populated when the STP is
>> part of the ordered list.
>>  • An "STP List Type" that will support both an ordered and unordered
>> list of STPs.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So is does my definition of a Path Object cover what was intended in the
>> CS architecture document?
>> 
>> 
>>   <xsd:complexType name="PathObjectType">
>>       <xsd:sequence>
>>          <xsd:element name="aSTP" type="tns:StpType" minOccurs="1"
>> maxOccurs="1" />
>>          <xsd:element name="orderedStpList" type="tns:StpListType" />
>>          <xsd:element name="zSTP" type="tns:StpType" minOccurs="1"
>> maxOccurs="1" />
>>       </xsd:sequence>
>>    </xsd:complexType>
>> 
>>   <xsd:complexType name="StpType">
>>       <xsd:sequence>
>>          <xsd:element name="networkId" type="xsd:string" minOccurs="1"
>> maxOccurs="1" />
>>          <xsd:element name="localId" type="xsd:string" minOccurs="1"
>> maxOccurs="1" />
>>       </xsd:sequence>
>>       <xsd:attribute name="order" type="xsd:integer" />
>>    </xsd:complexType>
>> 
>>   <xsd:complexType name="StpListType">
>>       <xsd:sequence>
>>          <xsd:element name="stp" type="tns:StpType" minOccurs="0"
>> maxOccurs="unbounded" />
>>       </xsd:sequence>
>>    </xsd:complexType>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2011-03-12, at 10:11 PM, Jerry Sobieski wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi John-
>> 
>> Yes.   For NSI I think we can say an STP==endpoint.
>> 
>> I think STPs in the abstract sense may be topological locations other
>> than just a port or a VLAN, but for the purposes of NSI v1.0, I think a
>> "real STP" is indeed a location in the topology where a connection may
>> originate or terminate.
>> 
>> (I note that I used a circular reference in the endpoint definition.
>> Apologies.  An Endpoint is the physical topological terminus of a
>> connection.)     I do reserve some flexibility in the abstraction
>> however.  I think there are ways we can use Service Termination Points to
>> indicate larger complexes of topological elements.   If folks are
>> intersted I will elaborate, but for now, and to be expedient with respect
>> to defining ReserveRequest() parameters, I suggest we accept an adequate
>> definition and leave additional refinement to later.
>> 
>> Is this helpful?
>> Jerry
>> 
>> On 3/12/11 9:57 PM, John MacAuley wrote:
>> 
>> Jerry,
>> 
>> 
>> So based on your definition below is STP == Endpoint Reference from an
>> NSI protocol perspective?
>> 
>> Definitions:
>> 
>> Service Termination Point := 1. An abstract object that represents the
>> ingress or egress point of a connection, or the abstract notion of a
>> location in a topology where a connection could potentially originate or
>> terminate.  2. A real point in a topology where a connection can
>> originate or terminate.
>> 
>> Endpoint := In NSI, this is a location within a network that can be used
>> as an endpoint for a connection.
>> 
>> Endpoint Reference := a two-tuple consisting of a {<network name>,
>> <endpoint name>} .  An “endpoint reference” is this tuple, the
>> “endpoint” itself is the topological location it identifies.
>> 
>> John.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1791 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20110313/4fbba604/attachment.bin