Hi Juergen, Thanks for your comments on this L2 topology model. Please see some replies inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11:18 PM > To: Susan Hares > Cc: [email protected]; Dongjie (Jimmy) > Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 week WG adoption call for > draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01.txt > > 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. > > 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. As a topology model, the L2 topology model is focusing on the overview of connectivity between the network entities from layer-2's perspective, thus the detailed config and operational information of interfaces will not be covered in this model, only those which are used as the identifiers of nodes and termination-points are included. We will take a look at whether the interface model should be referenced here. > 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? The chassis-id here has the same meaning as it is in LLDP. Currently its type is set to mac-address as one common implementation. This could be updated with a more generic type. The information can be extracted from bridging process, LLDP or other sources. This topology model just use the collected information to specify the topology of the layer-2 network, no matter where such information comes from. As Sue replied, liaison to IEEE is a good idea. While we need to keep in mind that this L2 topology model will not reflect too much details of different L2 technologies. This is similar to the relationship between the L3 topology model and the L3 protocol specific models. Best regards, Jie > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
