Subject: [Supa] Three comments to draft-contreras-supa-yang-network-topo-03

From: "Dacheng Zhang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:34:25 +0800

1.    Virtual/logic topology is not included in the figure. The virtual
topology should also be an abstraction layer above datalink topology layer.
2.    In the data model, the node has three types: physical, virtual and
container. The container node is not quite clear that the virtual node can
also be a group of nodes.
3.    The topology data model is only focused on layer 0-3, what about the
upper layer? Abstractions at all level are necessary in order to map the
high level applications.

Cheers

Dacheng

---

From: "Jun Bi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:00:38 +0800

Hi Dacheng,

Thanks for your comments.

The virtual node is defined as a part of a physical node. (One physical
router is configured as multiple virtual routers, etc.)

The container node is defined as a group of physical nodes (E.g., multiple
routers are configured as one virtualized router).

I agree with Tina's reply on question #3. I propose to leave the draft for
layer 0-3 at this stage. If there is a real requirement on "application
layer topo", then we can add it anytime later.

Best Regards,

Jun

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Andrew Qu
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:40 AM
To: Dacheng Zhang; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Supa] Three comments to
draft-contreras-supa-yang-network-topo-03

Hi Dacheng,

From: Supa [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dacheng Zhang
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:34 PM
To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
Subject: [Supa] Three comments to draft-contreras-supa-yang-network-topo-03

I agree with you.  I feel like we should add this to the chart to be clear
to reader.

But YANG model contained in the draft does clearly define the logic
topology.

Please check the mdoel in later section.

not quite follow your idea,  can you elaborate it more?

Above L3,  to network it is service or application layer such as SFC
(service functional chaining),  do you suggest

that we put service chaining model into consideration?

it's hard to define application as it is more SaaS scope,  this draft is
more focusing on IaaS.  Please share more thoughts with us.

Thanks,

Andrew

Cheers

Dacheng

************* Email Confidentiality Notice ********************
The information contained in this e-mail message (including any 
attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise
exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be 
conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination, 
distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its 
attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may 
be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe

that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of 
this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not
disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!