Subject: [i2rs] Network Topology drafts

From: "Jan Medved (jmedved)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:03:39 +0000

We updated the Network Topology drafts - use cases (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-amante-i2rs-topology-use-cases/) and the topology information model (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-medved-i2rs-topology-im/).  Please have a look - comments & feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Also, as agreed at the last WG meeting in Berlin, we'd like to open a discussion whether network topology (as defined in the above use cases and the information model) is in the WG charter.  The statement "The ability to extract information about topology from the network" in the WG charter says that topology is in charter, but does not exactly say how.

Thanks,
Jan

---

From: Scott Whyte <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:40:59 -0700

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 05:03:39PM +0000, Jan Medved (jmedved) wrote:
> We updated the Network Topology drafts - use cases
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-amante-i2rs-topology-use-cases/)
> and the topology information model
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-medved-i2rs-topology-im/).
> Please have a look - comments & feedback would be greatly
> appreciated.
> 
> Also, as agreed at the last WG meeting in Berlin, we'd like to open
> a discussion whether network topology (as defined in the above use
> cases and the information model) is in the WG charter.  The
> statement "The ability to extract information about topology from
> the network" in the WG charter says that topology is in charter, but
> does not exactly say how.

Jan,

WRT to the use-case draft:
If section 2 would explicitly define Topology that would help.  The
draft abstract seems to define topology as "routing, forwarding and
policy information".  Section 1 seems to treat Topology as graph
information only, separate from inventory and stastics.  Section 3
seems to flip that and go back to the abstract's definition.

WRT the IM draft:
There seems to be a differentiation made between topology and topology
model.  If I read it correctly, a topology model consists of graph
information (what I think of as topology), and other baggage.  If I
got that right, this seems similar to my mental model of ISIS: the
topology consists of information describing how the nodes are
connected, and IP information is essentially baggage that makes it
possible to route IP packets.

Personally I think defining a topology model that uses different
graphs and corresponding baggage to provide useful abstractions is in
scope.  I'd like it if you could tighten up the language though.

-Scott

> Thanks, Jan

> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

---

From: "Jan Medved (jmedved)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 06:54:04 +0000

Hi Scott,

Thanks a lot for the comments - please see inline.

On 10/30/13 5:40 PM, "Scott Whyte" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>If section 2 would explicitly define Topology that would help.

Ok.

>The draft abstract seems to define topology as "routing, forwarding and

 Good point. We'll align better Section 1 with the the rest of the draft.

>possible to route IP packets.

Correct. Also, the graph seems to be common for all kinds of topologies
(L2, L3, service, VPN, etc), while the baggage is specific to a given
typology type.

>scope.  I'd like it if you could tighten up the language though.

Ok.

Thanks, 
Jan