Global Lambda Integrated Facility

Re: Re: GLIF subgroup on Global Lightpath IDs

  • Subject: Re: Re: GLIF subgroup on Global Lightpath IDs
  • From: Ronald van der Pol <Ronald.vanderPol@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:36:43 +0200

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 13:50:52 -0400, Thomas Tam wrote:

> Hi Ronald,
> Again, sorry for the delay.

Obviously, we are all busy :-)

> There is one thing I would like to mention again, which is the purpose  
> of the Global ID. I think you are pretty clear outlined in the 3rd  
> paragraph of the introduction. Anything we propose should be based on  
> this purpose.
> “Global identifiers complement the local naming schemes that are in use  
> in the various do-mains. It is assumed that most domains will use the  
> global identifiers as aliases for their local names. The global  
> identifiers are used in communication with other domains.”
> First, let me comment on the questions in the section 3.
> - Is a global registry needed?
> I hope not. We might need some references but not a global registry that  
> needs to be managed by someone.
> - Is a central registry per domain needed?
> I can't say for domain administrators, it is really up to each domain of  
> how to manage their information.
> - What's the maximum length of the identifier?
> I have no preference but we definitely need to define a recommended length.
> - Can the identifier be generated by provisioning software.
> It would be nice, however, this shouldn't be a part of the  
> consideration. Since the purpose of the ID is to be used for  
> communication with other domains. Each domain can come up their own  
> ideas of how to use the IDs and how to generate them.
> -Is the identifier unique or only statistically unique?
> IMO, statistically unique would be acceptable.
> - What is the allowed character set?
> No preference.

I have changed this part in the document to "requirements".

> My comments on the global ID.
> I think we’re all favor on an ID that consists of two parts format, the  
> GOLE and local portions. In fact, I’m kind of thinking of the Dante  
> naming scheme, it clearly identifies the lightpath end points and also  
> it’s one of LHCOPN lightpaths
> Now my question is who should take the responsibility to generate the  
> ID. I would think that the first network/GOLE that initiates the initial  
> cross-domain lightpath should be responsible for generating the ID. e.g  

I think that would be the "sourcing GOLE". I have put this in the

> In the GOLE portion, I do like the idea of using short abbreviation in  
> the GOLE portion. In these days, most of networks, institutions are  
> using short abbreviation to represent their organizations. So I don’t  
> think we have any issue for the abbreviated naming. eg. Starlight,  
> MANLAN, CANARIE. A list of abbreviated names can be posted on the GLIF  
> site. I think the abbreviated naming is straight-forward and simple.

Maybe we could start with the sourcing GOLEs and extend that to networks
and institutions later?

> In the local portion, I would think it should be up to the local domain  
> to generate a unique ID with a maximum recommended length. As long as  
> the local is unique internally, I think it’s safe to say that the global  
> is unique globally. IMO, we might provide recommendations but should not  
> impose how this number should be generated.
> So combining the two parts, the global ID that generated by CANARIE  
> could look like this: CANARIE-LP013. The GOLE portion is CANARIE, the  
> local part is the internal lightpath tracking number, which is unique  
> internally.
> There is one more piece of information is missing in the picture. A  
> prefix “GLIF” could be added. This would indicate that this is a GLIF  
> related global ID. The global ID would look like this: 

I hope we get true global identifiers. The GLIF addition should not
be needed.

> As you can see, my recommendation isn’t much different from the Dante  
> and Internet2 naming schemes. However, instead of one organization  
> controlling the ID generation, the responsibility is handing over the  
> local admin.

I put a recommendation in the document. Please let me know what you
think of it.


Attachment: global-identifiers.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document