Hello Lyle,
I agree that:
1. - Interface Groups are designed to be used to select DPN.
2. - Interface Groups may contain a number of different Interface Types
3. - There may be more than one Interface Group providing equivalent
service, at least for the purpose of selecting a DPN.
For (1) -- I imagine that the selection process would look to make sure
that the Interface Group has the proper interfaces that are needed (say,
by the FPC Client). Then, the FPC Client would select the DPN hosting
the Interface Group, set up connectivity with the interfaces in the Peer
Interface Group(s), and all is good.
For (2) -- this is really the motivation for the concept of Interface
Groups.
For (3) -- really a follow-on from (1): the FPC Client would then look
at the other properties of the DPN hosting the Interface Group, to
determine which was the least cost, or highest benefit, choice. Or
alternatively the FPC Client would look at the Settings on the
Interfaces of the Group, to see which Interfaces had the best fit for
the purposes of the FPC Client.
If I have these scenarios right, then (a) we don't need to introduce any
further virtual DPN definitions for proper operation and (b) it makes
good sense for all the Interfaces of an Interface Group to be hosted on
the same DPN.
The intent of the structure is for use during DPN selection. To
maintain it as a DPN means some DPNs are used during selection but
others are not.
I agree with this completely, if I understand it. After the selection
occurs based on the suitability of the Interface Group, its function is
done. I did not in any way mean to suggest that the Interface Group was
ever going to be a DPN or a virtual DPN.
I just want all of the Interfaces of an Interface Group to be on the
same DPN.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 1/22/2018 11:36 AM, Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] wrote:
k. I think that we are crossing conversations now.
“An Interface Group on a DPN would also have have attributes for Peer
Interface Groups residing on other DPNs. ” < Did not see that.
Interface Groups (aka DPN Groups) can be used for DPN pool selection
(multiple options) with a different interface strategy.
Interface Groups (aka DPN Groups) may also contain hetergeneous
DPN-Type (interface types). In this case the totality of services
could be provided by more than one DPN.
If we say that this is ‘just a virtual DPN with a selection strategy
of multiple underlying DPNs” I feel that we are jamming too many
concepts into the DPN. Overloading is okay until one is overloaded ;)
The intent of the structure is for use during DPN selection. To
maintain it as a DPN means some DPNs are used during selection but
others are not.
I would propose that we keep this concept separate for now, look at
proposed changes and then revisit this issue.
*From:*Charlie Perkins [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Monday, January 22, 2018 12:07 PM
*To:* Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] <[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: Question about Interface Groups (formerly, DPN Groups)
Hello Lyle,
An Interface Group on a DPN would also have have attributes for Peer
Interface Groups residing on other DPNs. So, the data plane
configuration can already exhibit the ("cross-DPN") interconnection
between Interface Groups even if the interfaces of the Group all
reside on the same DPN.
Could you give an example of an Interface Group that perforce requires
to reside on multiple DPNs? Is it a case that could be handled better
by defining a virtual DPN to host the Interface Group? I understand
the word "containment" but I'm not at all clear about what sort of
Group requires the extra complication to expedite the stated purpose,
which is DPN selection. If there are other purposes, I would be
inclined to define other structures for them that do not have the
effect of complicating the Interface Group definition.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 1/22/2018 5:11 AM, Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] wrote:
<adding mailing list>
No, I don’t think they should reside under a DPN. Groups like
these also span multiple DPNs which would make containment graphs
far too confusing.
*From:*Charlie Perkins [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:51 PM
*To:* Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* Marco Liebsch <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; Satoru Matsushima
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>; Moses, Danny
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>; Weaver,
Farni [CTO] <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; Matsushima Satoru
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Question about Interface Groups
Hello folks,
Can we have it so that all the Interfaces of an "Interface Group"
(formerly, "DPN Group") reside on the same DPN?
If so, I can make good sense out of the text in the document, but
otherwise I think there are big problems.
I have some other questions, but this is the main thing right
now. If the answer to my question is "Yes" I think I will have a
sensible revision tomorrow.
I have some more questions, not quite as important, which I will
put in separate emails.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 1/18/2018 5:26 AM, Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] wrote:
Charlie,
Glad to hear things are going well. I’m looking forward to
your document update.
Lyle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended
for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
the sender and delete all copies of the message.
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
