[NMOP] SIMAP Issue 104: Italo Busi - REQ-SHARED
Olga Havel <olga.havel@huawei.com> Tue, 03 February 2026 17:58 UTC
Return-Path: <olga.havel@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: nmop@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: nmop@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C2AB15A91F for <nmop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2026 09:58:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.193
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.193 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_08=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gQdzskoTQ-f3 for <nmop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2026 09:58:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60835B15A912 for <nmop@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2026 09:58:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.224.107]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4f5B5c542wzHnGfP for <nmop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2026 01:57:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapema100004.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.19.128]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D43B40570 for <nmop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2026 01:58:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapema500007.china.huawei.com (7.182.19.81) by frapema100004.china.huawei.com (7.182.19.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.36; Tue, 3 Feb 2026 18:58:24 +0100
Received: from frapema500007.china.huawei.com ([7.182.19.81]) by frapema500007.china.huawei.com ([7.182.19.81]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Tue, 3 Feb 2026 18:58:24 +0100
From: Olga Havel <olga.havel@huawei.com>
To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>, "nmop@ietf.org" <nmop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: SIMAP Issue 104: Italo Busi - REQ-SHARED
Thread-Index: AdyVNiOSc7UK9TfJToydP0lRCqzDZA==
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2026 17:58:24 +0000
Message-ID: <db8200eec7434fe8a66845878bc9830d@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.206.138.9]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_db8200eec7434fe8a66845878bc9830dhuaweicom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: BDPZYKGWRQRBB5677AYI6V3GLPWB4FAN
X-Message-ID-Hash: BDPZYKGWRQRBB5677AYI6V3GLPWB4FAN
X-MailFrom: olga.havel@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [NMOP] SIMAP Issue 104: Italo Busi - REQ-SHARED
List-Id: "Network Management Operations (NMOP) Working Group" <nmop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/5YDboOIpUh4ydaHe9vuQy5-6Wlw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nmop>
List-Help: <mailto:nmop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:nmop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:nmop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:nmop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:nmop-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Italo, The issue 104 has been opened based on the following comment from you: REQ-SHARED: : SIMAP must provide a mechanism to share nodes, links, and termination points between different networks. Minor comment for 20) REQ-SHARED Since in RFC8345, nodes, links and termination points are defined under the network, it is not possible to share them between different networks. We know that RFC8345 defines nodes, links and TPs under network, we identified it as a gap and implemented options at hackathons, but this draft only lists requirements and not how it will be modelled. We presented this multiple times in the past (side meetings, OPSAWG/NMOP sessions) when discussing modelling requirements for IS-IS and OSPF Areas - sharing the links between networks for IS-IS and sharing the nodes between the networks for OSPF. We can discuss how to model it in the future - via RFC8345 approach (not aligned with the figure below) or some other approach. [cid:image001.png@01DC9535.CBF83940] I don't think your comment is related to the requirement, but to how to model it, so I suggest we close this issue. Best Regards, Olga