Thus spake Larry Peterson on Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 01:29:37PM -0400:
> I think we're roughly on the same page, but a point of
> clarification on this last issue. Even when there's an SM
> between the user and the set of aggregates, we also
> believe in the machine language model for the rspec.
> The only difference is whether the rspec is defined for
> a single aggregate or for a set of aggregates.
In our case, each aggregate is advertised using a separate RSpec, and
when tickets are requested, one hands a separate request RSpec to each
AM. However, the RSpecs can have "external references" to describe how
aggregates and slices are connected to each other. In the current
implementation, these are pretty simple (tunnels that can have endpoints
in different aggregates), and we're working on making them more
sophisticated.
> The SM very broadly defined (i.e., to include layers of
> functionality beyond the slice interface) might very well
> add capabilities beyond this "machine language" but at
> that point I wouldn't call it an rspec any more (just to keep
> terminology clear).
I agree, I wouldn't call it an RSpec at that point either.
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert P Ricci <
ricci@...> | <
ricci@...>
| Research Associate, University of Utah Flux Group
| www.flux.utah.edu | www.emulab.net
\-----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg
