[Nsi-wg] NML issues

[John MacAuley]

Ran into an interesting one today.  This is more of a philosophical debate, but thought I would bring it up as others may ask the same question.

There are unidirectional ports within the NML topology that are identified as connected to remote networks, however, the vlan ranges associated with them do not match.  An example of this is one of the links between Netherlight and UvA:

        <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#hasInboundPort">
            <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:uva:1:in">
                <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:uvalight.net:2013:uvalight-netherlight"/>
                </nml:Relation>
            </nml:PortGroup>
        </nml:Relation>

and

        <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#hasOutboundPort">
            <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:uvalight.net:2013:uvalight-netherlight">
                <nml:LabelGroup labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet#vlan">1780-1783</nml:LabelGroup>
                <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias">
                    <nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:uva:1:in"/>
                </nml:Relation>
            </nml:PortGroup>
        </nml:Relation>

Obviously, I only have four STP's in each network that can form SDP between the networks, however, do the remaining 16 STP in Netherlight exist since nothing can ever utilize them?  At the moment I toss these 16 potential STP on the floor since they provide no value, however, I wouldn't want to violate any unspoken rules ;-)

John

On 2013-09-24, at 7:09 AM, Jeroen van der Ham <vdham at uva.nl> wrote:

> 
> On 24 Sep 2013, at 12:46, Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
>> 
>>> On the other hand, a PortGroup can have a LabelGroup with just a single Label.
>>> 
>>> So it is recommended to use PortGroups and LabelGroups.
>> 
>> So PortGroup+LabelGroup is essentially a superset of Port/Label?
>> 
>> What is the purpose of the Port/Label combination?
> 
> Single Port with a Single Label.
> 
> For example a static Port, or a statically configured Port.
> 
> Jeroen.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20130924/940473f4/attachment.html>