Werner Almesberger wrote:
>
[...]
> > 3.1, page 6, list.
> > Why is (N,N) excluded ? What if I have two sites X and Y, each with
> > a primary access link, and a backup link, and I want to describe
> > the network service between the two sites ? Excluding (N,N) seems to
> > require at least a justification.
> >
> > [Y: well, it is ok to indicate it, however, the semantics should then
> > also be mentioned. does the flow id and traffic enveloppe that is
> > described apply to any of the ingress points ? if so, than the service
> > that is described can be decomposed in n* (1,N), and would be a short
> > notation for this. we'll mention it in the next release.]
>
> I was mainly thinking of a service like this: company X has two sites
> A and B. ISP gives some assurances on traffic from A to B. Each site
> is connected via two links/routers to the network of the ISP. The ISP
> does not wish to reveal its internal structure in the contract with X
> (e.g. simply because they're changing things every month anyway).
>
> In this scenario, I don't think there's a natural mapping into
> independent (1,N) SLS. Of course, one could introduce inter-SLS
> dependencies ... :-(
so the semantics according to your description are interface x XOR
interface y apply the SLS, this is a possibility.
yves
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 20 2000 - 11:17:01 CEST