Daniel Hagerty wrote on 04/12/2005 10:48 AM:
> > Not only that, but also to define new types of devices and connections
> > for the model itself.
>
> And in doing this, you start to approach the realm of the semantic
> problem. The give away words in what you say are "new types". What
> is a new type?
It is only a semantic problem if you're looking for a
one-size-fits-all universal taxonomy of networking. I believe in a
system with a small set of primitives with well-defined semantics,
which can be used to define a network model of anything from an X.25
financial system to a Tier1 backbone provider, to a heterogeneous mesh
network.
In my use of it here, a "type", or "element type" is a grouping of
elements that share common attributes, functions, and similar roles in
the network hierarchy. We have "types" that include "interface",
"card", "connection" (sub-typed by vlan, lsp, etc.), and even
higher-level constructs of "qos policy" and "edge router".
Each of these types has well-defined semantics (interfaces can be
connected to one or more interfaces via connnections; cards can be
interchanged in slots, etc.) that are true despite vendor or model
differences.
Thanks,
--kirby files
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
