Re: [Supa] Network Topology Data Model and Network Configration Data Model

["Wunan (Eric)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen,



Please check my reply in line.



In the IP world, we usually talk about nodes, links, and interfaces.
And interfaces have been generalized to cover multiple layers. Is
there a specific reason why you prefer the term 'TerminationPoint'?
How is a 'TerminationPoint' different from an interface (and what
is the relationship between them)?

[Eric]: As the draft said, network topology DM is supposed to be defined in a hierachy manner.

When "IP world" is the concern, we are acutally talking about the topology DM for IP.

You are right that people are more familar with "interface", I am.

Actually in the IP Topology DM, "TerminationPoint" is interface.

Per my understanding, this word may be prefered because network topology is not only focusing on IP.

As you know some protocols don't have to depend on "interface", they got their own vacabulary.

For example, IS-IS was using "circuit" and VLAN got "port".

When speaking "interface", i feel it will be more proper when CLI is used.

What is the difference of this topology data model from other
proposals on the table, such as draft-clemm-i2rs-yang-network-topo-01
and draft-hares-i2rs-info-model-service-topo-01 (there there might
be more)?

[Eric]: I would say both of them are talking about topology data model.

One difference may be the position they are used in the architecture.

For draft-hares-i2rs-info-model-service-topo-01,

I think it is the topology for service, another layer in the hierarchy.

If topology data models are crucial for 'northbound' applications, why
is lets say draft-zaalouk-supa-configuration-model-01 not using a
topology data model but instead coming up with its own notion of
interfaces and node identifiers?

[Eric]: I agree with you. Authors may need to coordinate on that.



Regards

Eric




  *   From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de<mailto:[e-mail]>>
  *   To: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting at huawei.com<mailto:[e-mail]>>
  *   Cc: "supa at ietf.org<mailto:[e-mail]>" <supa at ietf.org<mailto:[e-mail]>>
  *   Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:17:05 +0100
  *   In-reply-to: <[e-mail]<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/supa/current/msg00181.html>>
  *   References: <[e-mail]<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/supa/current/msg00181.html>>
  *   List-id: "This list is to discuss SUPA \(Shared Unified Policy Automation\) related issues." <supa.ietf.org>

________________________________

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 08:43:57AM +0000, Tina TSOU wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As time not allowed, these are the slides for agenda item: Network Topology Data Model and Network Configration Data Model, which I received.
>

In the IP world, we usually talk about nodes, links, and interfaces.
And interfaces have been generalized to cover multiple layers. Is
there a specific reason why you prefer the term 'TerminationPoint'?
How is a 'TerminationPoint' different from an interface (and what
is the relationship between them)?

What is the difference of this topology data model from other
proposals on the table, such as draft-clemm-i2rs-yang-network-topo-01
and draft-hares-i2rs-info-model-service-topo-01 (there there might
be more)?

If topology data models are crucial for 'northbound' applications, why
is lets say draft-zaalouk-supa-configuration-model-01 not using a
topology data model but instead coming up with its own notion of
interfaces and node identifiers?

/js

--
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>