Re: Why do we need topology exchange?

[Victor Reijs <victor.reijs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Jeroen,

Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
> However, at the GLIF meeting I posed that the statement that I've been
> working at topology descriptions for over 5 years now, partly because
> the GLIF community showed an interest in this.
> At the moment GOLEs are still not publishing topologies in a machine
> readable format. So there seems to be a disconnect between what the
> community says they want to do and what they actually do.
>
> We need to figure out why that is.

A good point. I think there migth be a few reasons:
. there are no automated systems yet that can avail of such a 
(abstracted) topology, so there is no real need to do (chicken and egg).

. there is no standard way yet how to describe an (abstract) topology?

. what are the minimum parameter one need to be able to make a connection?

. what application uses/need such things?

My drive for this all, is that I hope it will reduce the work of the 
NOCs (so I not that interested in end/kill application, but I am sure it 
will emerge).
I think inititiatives like IDC/AutoBAHN, cNIS/OGF, pathfinding and 
Stitching Framework/GIRRA all make sure that standardization is emerging.

Sorry not to be able to gave a very concrete response, but I hope it helps.

All the best,


Victor
--
HEAnet National Networking Conference, 10-12 November 2010
Registration is now open at: http://www.heanet.ie/conferences/2010/

Victor Reijs, Network Development Manager
HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1
Registered in Ireland, no 275301
tel: +353-1-660 9040  fax: +353-1-660 3666
web: http://www.heanet.ie/