At 09:28 AM 12/12/01 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Sorry re terminology. Noel is always more correct here.
>> By 'layers' here I more mean how I want to administratively
>> topologically group my routers.
>
>i know this is a quibble, but ...
>
>do you want the view of your topology to always have the same structure
>no matter which of your 'faces' the neighbor sees?
randy
the _intent_ of the requirements as i wrote them (and as i
think i've explained to the requirements-development-subgroup
and having heard no dissent, make the great presumption that
they agree :-) is that an architecture developed to meet the
requirements
- allow for topological "elements" (TE's)
- allow a network owner to divide their network into TEs
more or less however they please
- allow TEs to be hierarchically arranged (though not necessarily
in a strict tree, a TE can be a child of two different 'parents'
- allow one TE to hide its rules/topology/policy/...
from a containing-TE (and from a contained-TE)
- if a TE has multiple parents, it can export 'stuff' about itself
assuming that the document does say this in some twisted and
odd fashion, does it meet your requirements?
f
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT