[Nsi-wg] Service Termination Points

John MacAuley john.macauley at surfnet.nl
Mon Mar 14 11:55:34 CDT 2011 

The strategy I took in defining the WSDL operations it to return the reserved connection parameters in the reserveConfirmed, and queryResult (Inder I need your slides so I can get the names correct).  These are similar to the original reservation parameters, except with the addition of connection state, the chosen guaranteed parameters, the chosen preferred parameters, and optionally the PathObject describing the chosen path (may be removed based on discussions).  I believe, with the exception of PathObject, that this would line up with discussions in Hong Kong.

As for the hop-by-hop parameters - I have left it up to the NSA implementation to decide what is returned up the tree.  I think specifying this is out-of-scope ;-)

Seriously now, I visualized that the first Provider NSA would take the sourceSTP and destSTP, perform path computation using some type of topology, then reserve this STP topology down the tree.  The resulting reserveConfirmed would contain this STP topology which, at a minimum, would be the inter-domain STP entities interconnecting the domains.

John.

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Inder Monga" <imonga at es.net>
> To: "Jerry Sobieski" <jerry at nordu.net>
> Cc: "John MacAuley" <john.macauley at surfnet.nl>, nsi-wg at ogf.org
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:38:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nsi-wg] Service Termination Points
> or maybe I am confused, either way -
> 
> The PA's state and request parameters as-built - the request
> parameters as built may have the abstract representation of the
> various "segments" of the call with any information that may be
> shared. Is that what I am assuming for "hop by hop" information.
> but this may not be what Chin/John had been meaning in their
> responses.
> 
> Inder
> 
> On Mar 14, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Jerry Sobieski wrote:
> 
> > Hmm...maybe I am confused... (not often:-)
> >
> > What hop by hop aspects are we speaking to?
> >
> > J
> >
> > On 3/14/11 12:21 PM, Inder Monga wrote:
> >> Returning the hop-by-hop capabilities does not necessarily imply
> >> walking the tree.
> >>
> >>
> >> Inder
> >>
> >> On Mar 14, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Jerry Sobieski wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think we had agreed at GLIF that queries would be (for now) just
> >>> returning the PA's state and the request parameters as-built. That
> >>> there was no walking the tree implied at this time...?
> >>>
> >>> J
> >>>
> >>> On 3/13/11 12:29 PM, John MacAuley wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> nsi-wg mailing list
> >>> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> >>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
> >> ---
> >> Inder Monga
> >> imonga at es.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> ---
> Inder Monga
> imonga at es.net

More information about the nsi-wg mailing list