Mahesh: 

 

Thank you for your input on the MEF L2 Service topologies. 

 

Just to be clear, the I2RS L2 Topology model is simply a virtual topology model 
as specified in the I2RS charter.  This virtual topology model provides a link 
between the Service layer, L3 layer, L2 layer, and the physical topology.  
These virtual topologies provide a seamless protocol independent virtual 
topology that operators may utilize.  

 

The I2RS virtual topology is not the L2 Bridge configuration and operational 
status that 802.1 is developing. The I2RS L2 virtual topology needs to align 
with 802.1 Bridge and operational status work, but it does not provide the 
configuration and operational state.   

 

I2RS L2 yang modules that would augment the L2 Bridge configuration and 
operational state for the I2RS interface are not in charter  The I2RS is not 
chartered to work on L2 Service topologies.  I also encourage authors to work 
with you for those MEF L2 Service topologies.  

 

In interest of rapid advancement of all yang work,  individuals may discuss/get 
advice for I2RS specific issues for L2 yang modules for these L2 Bridge or MEF 
L2 Service topologies.  It is great to see the yang work take off. 

 

Sue 

 

 

From: Mahesh Jethanandani [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 4:10 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: Thomas D. Nadeau; Juergen Schoenwaelder; [email protected]; Dongjie (Jimmy); 
Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Carl Moberg (camoberg)
Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 week WG adoption call for 
draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01.txt

 

There is a PAR/CSD making its way through dot1Q to develop YANG models in that 
committee. The first of those models is to develop the bridge model.

 

In addition to IEEE, I would think that the L2 topology work would be better 
served in MEF where we are trying to develop service models for L2 services. As 
a editor of that project, I would love a contribution from the authors and will 
support it there.

 

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote:

Tom:

I'll drop a note to official liaison for IEEE is a good idea, and other IEEE
members of 802.1 I know.  Thank you for that input.

The I2RS L2 protocol topology is the protocol independent topology.  Just as
Alexander Clemm points out that the L3 topology may be a virtual composite
of either the static setting or a combination of the protocol specific
topologies, the L2 topology is a virtual composite of the lower L2
topologies.

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas D. Nadeau
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 3:32 PM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
Cc: [email protected]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Susan Hares; Dongjie (Jimmy)
Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 week WG adoption call for
draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01.txt



> On Apr 6, 2015:11:17 AM, at 11:17 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:11:39AM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
>> This begins a 2 week adoption call for
>> draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01.
>>
>> Please indicate in your comments "support" or "no support" and
>> discuss how this draft will allow I2RS client-agent pairs to query
>> information about L2 topology.  The draft can be found at:
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology/
>>
>> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clemm-i2rs-yang-l3-topo/>
>
> I wonder how this will interwork with any possible IEEE work. Bridges
> and VLANs had been modeled as MIBs back in a day but we meanwhile
> transferred work all over to IEEE. I think there should be some IEEE
> liaison interaction here.

        There has been indication at least, that the IEEE was going to
embark on this work to reflect the L2/bridge MIB work that went on there.
But as you say, there has been no official liaison to the IETF on this.
Perhaps Dan (CC:ed) knows?

        --Tom


> I also wonder to what extend this data model is repeating things that
> are already in the interfaces abstraction we have. There is no mention
> of RFC 7223 yet there is overlap.
>
> There are many other things I do not understand. Why is a chassis-id a
> mac-address (and how relates this notion of a chassis to the physical
> entity modeling work). How is this going to be implemented? Is the
> idea that the information is extracted out of a briding process or do
> protocols such as layer two discovery protocols like LLDP play a role
> here? In short, I think this model needs some decent IEEE layer two
> expertise - so does this really fall into the scope of I2RS?
>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 <tel:%2B49%20421%20200%203587>          Campus Ring 1 
> | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 <tel:%2B49%20421%20200%203103>          
> <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>

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

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





 

-- 

Mahesh Jethanandani

[email protected]

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

Reply via email to