[Nsi-wg] NML issues
Jeroen van der Ham
vdham at uva.nl
Mon Sep 23 11:22:21 EDT 2013
No, a single Port can only have a single Label, not a set of Labels.
On the other hand, a PortGroup can have a LabelGroup with just a single Label.
So it is recommended to use PortGroups and LabelGroups.
Jeroen.
On 23 Sep 2013, at 17:04, Hans Trompert <Hans.Trompert at surfnet.nl> wrote:
> The same goes for the unidirectional port declarations, some use Port
> and Label:
>
> <nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:netherlight-out">
> <nml:Label
> labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/ethernet#vlan">1780-1783</nml:Label>
> <nml:Relation
> type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias">
> <nml:Port
> id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:nordu.net:1:in"/>
> </nml:Relation>
> </nml:Port>
>
> While others use PortGroup and LabelGroup:
>
> <nml:PortGroup
> id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:nordu.net:1:out">
> <nml:LabelGroup
> labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet#vlan">1779-1799</nml:LabelGroup>
> <nml:Relation
> type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias">
> <nml:PortGroup
> id="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:netherlight-in"/>
> </nml:Relation>
> </nml:PortGroup>
>
> Can both ways be used?
>
> HansT.
>
> On 9/23/13 4:46 PM, John MacAuley wrote:
>> Can someone explain to me which of the following two segments are
>> correct?
>>
>>
>> <nml:BidirectionalPortid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232">
>>
>> <nml:PortGroupid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232:in"/>
>>
>> <nml:PortGroupid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:232:out"/>
>> </nml:BidirectionalPort>
>>
>> or
>>
>> <nml:BidirectionalPortid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn">
>> <nml:name>ndn</nml:name>
>> <nml:Portid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn-in"/>
>> <nml:Portid="urn:ogf:network:ampath.net:2013:ndn-out"/>
>> </nml:BidirectionalPort>
>>
>> Should Port or PortGroup be used? We have a mix right now in our
>> topologies.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nsi-wg mailing list
>> nsi-wg at ogf.org
>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
More information about the nsi-wg
mailing list