[Nsi-wg] NORDUnet topology changes

[John MacAuley]

Thanks Henrik.  I have some comments below.

> * Peering
> 
> Path finding must - for obvious reasons - go along the data plane. Trust goes
> along the control plane - again for obvious reasons. The model presented here,
> asserts that data and control plane peering goes hand in hand. While two
> networks, that are not adjacent could trust each other, there is no need for it
> in the model presented. The model does not expose peerings through topology,
> but instead advertises reachability of topology. The core idea being that
> reachability of ports and topology is what matters, and not specific control
> plane peelings.

There was a long conversation on this where I presented many options and specifically asked for the requirement that the control plane connectivity minimally follows the data plane to simplify signalling.  The answer agreed upon in the meeting was NO, we cannot assume the control plane connectivity follows the data plane.  This was the reason for the control plane topology "peersWith" relationship, without which, you cannot determine the correct path for delivery of NSI CS message.  This effectively decouples the signalling plane from the data plane.  Good or bad this was the agreement.

> * Ports & Aggregation
>
> Prefix matching is limited to one level. 

Can you expand on what this specifically means?

From the examples are you suggesting something like:

urn:ogf:network:<provider id>:<network Id>:<local Id>

Allowing an NSA to manage a Provider (I avoided using Domain Name for clarity) with multiple Networks, and enumerated local identifiers.

> Reachability & Cost
> * Path Finding Example

From reading these two sections it looks like you are proposing a summary routes mechanism with related domain level costs then implementing a chain model for signalling.  True?

Thank you for the e-mail,

John