We do have a case for a topology that has multiple "topology types": we are defining a topology-type "sr-topoloyg" which is derived from "l3-unicast-igp-topology". We are also defining a topology of type "SR TE topology", which type is both "sr-topology" and "te-topology", hence multiple-inheritance is needed.
Thanks, - Xufeng > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Varga [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 12:54 PM > To: Alexander Clemm (alex) <[email protected]>; Zhangxian (Xian) > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [i2rs] network-type: container vs. identity? > > On 07/12/2016 06:29 PM, Alexander Clemm (alex) wrote: > > Per Robert's point, if for some reason you have multiple traits and want to > "compose" a network to encompass multiple types, this is straightforward to do > with the current pattern, not so straightforward with identities. > > There is also an issue of consistency within the models. While it may not be > obvious to have more 'topology types', it certainly makes sense for nodes > within > a topology -- for example in ODL we tag topology nodes with capabilities based > on the southbound protocol (like PCEP, OpenFlow, NETCONF). > > Bye, > Robert _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
