RE: GLIF subgroup on Global Lightpath IDs

["Tom Lehman" <tlehman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ronald, and all,

I have reviewed the latest draft, I have a few questions i would like to
raise relative to the recommendation to go with statistically unique
numbers:

-I think we all agree that the global id will be used as a key which can be
used across multiple domains to get additional information on the circuit in
question.  

-so my question is, if we go with the statistically unique number approach,
how do we find out about where the information repositories/databases/lookup
servers are which contain the additional detail?

-one additional thought regarding use of dns style name in the id, was that
it would also provide an indication of where to go for additional
information, at least as a start.  This relies on the assumption that there
is (or will be) a well known service associated with each domain, which
would provide this type of information (a perfsonar style lookup service
being one suggested possibility) 

-one of the objectives here was that when a domain provisions a circuit
(even if it is taking care of only one piece of a multi-domain circuit) it
does not have to update a central registry/database with any details.  All
details are kept locally, and authorized people can query a domain service.
This may require making multiple queries to multiple domain information
services, but by starting at the first, there would be enough information to
figure out which other domains needed to be queried.   Below is an example
of data kept locally for I2 DCN service.

-we could use the statistically unique numbers, and update a central
database so that others could figure out where to start the detail query
process, but then we have to try a keep a centralized database dynamically
updated as circuits come and go.

What do others think about this?

Tom


Here is an example of the data kept for I2 DCN service.  This is a
multidomain circuit which went thru Internet2 DCN and ESnet SDN.  As you can
see we have explcit route details (Intradomain hops) about the internal
domain (I2 DCN), but only ingress and egress (Interdomain path) info about
ESNet domain.  So this would be an indication to go to ESnet information
service if more details are needed.

----circuit detail example------
GRI  dcn.internet2.edu-5862	
Status	FINISHED
User	lambdastation
Description	test
Start time	4/16/2008 6:16
End time	4/16/2008 6:33
Created time 	4/16/2008 6:17
Bandwidth	2000000000
Source
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=LOSA:port=S27391:link=10.100.1
00.13
Destination
urn:ogf:network:domain=es.net:node=fnal-mr1:port=TenGigabitEthernet7/4:link=
*
Intradomain hops	
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=LOSA:port=S27391:link=10.100.1
00.13, desc: [ingress], VLAN: [3160],
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=LOSA:port=DTL1:link=10.100.90.
98,
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=SUNN:port=DTL9:link=10.100.90.
97,
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=SUNN:port=DTL1:link=10.100.90.
94,
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=SALT:port=DTL9:link=10.100.90.
93,
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=SALT:port=DTL1:link=10.100.90.
82,
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=DENV:port=DTL9:link=10.100.90.
81,
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=DENV:port=DTL1:link=10.100.90.
74,
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=KANS:port=DTL9:link=10.100.90.
73,
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=KANS:port=DTL1:link=10.100.90.
66,
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=CHIC:port=DTL9:link=10.100.90.
65,
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=CHIC:port=S27647:link=10.100.8
0.181, desc: [egress], VLAN: [3160]
Interdomain path	
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=LOSA:port=S27391:link=10.100.1
00.13,
urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=CHIC:port=S27647:link=10.100.8
0.181,
urn:ogf:network:domain=es.net:node=chic-sdn1:port=TenGigabitEthernet7/3:link
=*,
urn:ogf:network:domain=es.net:node=fnal-mr1:port=TenGigabitEthernet7/4:link=
*
VLAN	3160
----circuit detail example------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald van der Pol [mailto:Ronald.vanderPol@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:51 AM
> To: Erik-Jan Bos
> Cc: Ronald van der Pol; Thomas Tam; Lars Fischer; Tom Lehman
> Subject: Re: GLIF subgroup on Global Lightpath IDs
> 
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:31:03 +0200, Erik-Jan Bos wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ronald (and subgroup members!):
> > 
> > I would appreciate a short update on the work of your GLIF 
> Tech subgroup
> > on Global Lightpath IDs.
> 
> Erik-Jan,
> 
> Attached is the first draft proposal for internal task force review.
> We will try to reach consensus within the task force over a naming
> scheme that we can recommend to the glif community. I hope we can
> send our recommendation to the glif community somewhere next month.
> 
> 	rvdp
>