[Nsi-wg] NML issues

[Hans Trompert]

I think you should leave the STPs in the NetherLight topology. You as an
aggregator cannot use them as ENNIs to calculate a path from NetherLight
to the UvA, but they still can be used as as UNIs. It might just be the
case that you weren't allowed to see the full UvA topology and therefor
wrongly assumed that these NetherLight STPs do not have a counterpart at
the UvA side, but the user might just use you to only setup the
NetherLight segment and use another NSA, with a other view on the UvA
topology, to setup the UvA segment.

Cheers,
    HansT.
 
On 9/24/13 9:08 PM, John MacAuley wrote:
> 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:Relationtype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#hasInboundPort">
>            
> <nml:PortGroupid="urn:ogf:network:netherlight.net:2013:port:a-gole:testbed:uva:1:in">
>                
> <nml:LabelGrouplabeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet#vlan">1779-1799</nml:LabelGroup>
>                
> <nml:Relationtype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias">
>                    
> <nml:PortGroupid="urn:ogf:network:uvalight.net:2013:uvalight-netherlight"/>
>                 </nml:Relation>
>             </nml:PortGroup>
>         </nml:Relation>
>
> and
>
>      
>   <nml:Relationtype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#hasOutboundPort">
>            
> <nml:PortGroupid="urn:ogf:network:uvalight.net:2013:uvalight-netherlight">
>                
> <nml:LabelGrouplabeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet#vlan">1780-1783</nml:LabelGroup>
>                
> <nml:Relationtype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#isAlias">
>                    
> <nml:PortGroupid="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
> <mailto:vdham at uva.nl>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 24 Sep 2013, at 12:46, Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20130924/9d6062e3/attachment.html>