[Nsi-wg] uml proposal for STPs path object specifications...

[Jeroen van der Ham]

Hi,

On 7 Sep 2012, at 12:16, Jerry Sobieski <jerry at nordu.net> wrote:

> 
> On 9/7/12 2:26 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
>> On 6 Sep 2012, at 23:56, Jerry Sobieski <jerry at nordu.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I do not believe it is appropriate or useful to distribute the "topology ID" across both the source and sink localids.   This forces both source and sink to be part of the same network topology...why?   What value is this?  This does not force any relation to exist between the source and sink ports besides being part of the same topology file - so what is the use case or value of it?   We should specify each STP 2-tuple independently.
>> No, the question should be the reverse, why would you ever want to have a reservation request with two different topology IDs in it?
> Yes I Agree.   So what we have in the proposed triple form - _even with a single topology id _- is the ability to specify forward and reverse transit points that are widely geographicaly separated. There is no significant constraints imposed by a single topology. So while I agree with you that we do not want any particular hop to have widely geographically diverse forward and reverse paths, _/a single topology ID does not accomplish this./_

I'm not trying impose geographical restrictions, I'm trying to add logical restrictions. STPs with the same Topology ID should go to the same NSA. This makes the whole behavior a lot more predictable.

Jeroen.