Global Lambda Integrated Facility

Subject Re: globally unique identifiers for lightpaths?
From David Reese <dave@xxxxxxxxx>
Date Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:31:41 -0800


I support the idea of a global name/number. I would propose that it contain all of the local entity names and their local circuit names which make up the global lightpath (rather than embedded in the name per your last suggestion).

Dave Reese

On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:44 PM, Ronald van der Pol wrote:

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 14:42:20 +0100, Licia Florio wrote:

Dear all,

Please find attached the minutes of the meeting held in Prague.

Potential "Lightpath Management Group" members,

One of the items that came up in Prague was global identifiers
for lightpaths. At the time I was not convinced this was needed.
That is beginning to change. The more lightpaths there are, the
more difficult it becomes to be sure that we are talking about
the same lightpath.

One drawback that I still see is that it is an extra burden:
- for each new lightpath we need to come up with a name
- the name has to be put into the administration
- for those who want to keep local names the mapping
 between local name and global name needs to be put into
 the administration

So, what do you think? Should we start using global names
for lightpaths?

I think we should give it a try. If we agree we need a
naming convention. There are several possibilities.
Some examples:

Just a unique ID consisting of a number.
pro: easy to generate
con: gives no semantical information at all
con: where do we keep a list of IDs that are already given out?

pro: identies from where to where the lightpaths goes
con: no topological path information

pro: topological information about the path
con: this can become a rather long string

In the latter two cases the sourcing GOLE could give out the number.
This number has to be unique for that GOLE only (end_site_1 or

Ideas? Comments?