1. Partitioning and Abstraction Scenarios
Andrea Mazzini, Nokia
June 18, 2019

2. Purpose of this contribution
This contribution explores possible evolutions of current simplified (semi-opaque) TAPI topology model.
References are
TAPI_Multilayer_abstraction_model_v1.pptx (Arturo)
TAPI Topology & Connectivity Enhancements.pptx (Karthik)
All diagrams are intended at same layer network & rate, e.g. ODU4, unless otherwise stated.
This version adds some clarifications and two examples starting from “physical view”.

3. Example 1: Synchronized Partitioning, level zero (*)
Node aspect of FD
Link
TAPI Context
Topology aspect of FD
Mapping
Observer
Service Interface Point A
FD (Node)
01.1 A
FD (Topology)
03-1
Node Edge Point
A1-0
01.1
01-0
01.n
02.1
02-0
02.n
(*) Each “level” may be represented through a “AbstractView” object instance.

4. Example 1: Synchronized Partitioning, level one, case A
Node aspect of FD
Link
TAPI Context
Topology aspect of FD
Mapping
Observer
FD (Node)
Service Interface Point A
Topology encapsulated by Node A1-0
01.1 A
FD (Topology)
03-1
Node Edge Point
T-A1-0
The Link connects NEPs. A given NEP exists at a given partitioning/abstraction level. Hence the Link has a “scope” (its Topology) and a “level”.
01.1 C
C1-1
01-1
01.n
Consider a new attribute, the “abstraction level”.
04-1
B1-1
02.1
03-1
02-1
02.n
Link has scope in T-A1-0 and exists at abstraction level one

5. Example 1: Synchronized Partitioning, level one, case B
Node aspect of FD
Link
TAPI Context
Topology aspect of FD
Mapping
Observer
FD (Node)
Service Interface Point A
Topology encapsulated by Node A1-0
01.1 A
FD (Topology)
03-1
Node Edge Point
T-A1-0
The Link connects NEPs. A given NEP exists at a given partitioning/abstraction level. Hence the Link has a “scope” (its Topology) and a “level”.
01.1 C
C1-1
01-1
01.n
Consider a new attribute, the “abstraction level”.
04-1
03-1
B1-1
02.1
06-1
02-1
05-1
02.n
Link and 5-6 have scope in T-A1-0 and exist at abstraction level one

6. Example 1: Synchronized Partitioning, level two
Node aspect of FD
Link
TAPI Context
Topology aspect of FD
Mapping
Observer
FD (Node)
Service Interface Point A
01.1 A
FD (Topology)
03-1
Node Edge Point
Case A
T-A1-0
01.1
T-C1-1
C1-2
01-2
04-1
01.n
11-2
03-1
12-2
16-2
C3-2
T-B1-1
17-2
C4-2
13-2
18-2
04-2
C2-2
15-2
03-2
B1-2
02.1
14-2
02-2
04-2
05-2
03-2
06-2
02.n
06-2
05-2
Links and have scope in T-A1-0 and exist at abstraction level two
Link level one abstracts
Links and level two (in Case A)
The NEP 05, 06 appear only when opening level two (in Case A)

7. Example 2: The Physical View, with “zero” as conventional partitioning level.
01-0
N1-0
07-0
27-0
31-0
N6-0
23-0
02-0
08-0
N4-0
28-0
32-0
11-0
N3-0
21-0
15-0
17-0
19-0
24-0
12-0
N9-0
33-0
03-0
N2-0
29-0
13-0
N5-0
34-0
04-0
09-0
N7-0
16-0
18-0
20-0
25-0
14-0
22-0
05-0
10-0
26-0
N10-0
35-0
06-0
30-0
36-0
Physical View: all shown NEPs are 1:1 with eqp AccessPort, hence Links are 1:1 with PhysicalSpan (ignoring uni/bid property). Note that there could be AccessPorts that do not support NEPs
Physical View: could also be defined with respect to physical failures, the (statistically) smaller component that can be broken, cut, disconnected, etc. like a single fibre.

8. Example 2: Aggregation path “equipment oriented”, first level.
01-1
N1-1
T2-1
N8-1
07-1
T3-1
27-1
31-1
N6-1
23-1
02-1
08-1
N4-1
28-1
32-1
11-1
N3-1
21-1
15-1
17-1
19-1
24-1
12-1
N9-1
33-1
03-1
N2-1
29-1
13-1
N5-1
34-1
04-1
09-1
16-1
18-1
20-1
14-1
05-1
10-1
T4-1
06-1
25-1
N7-1
N10-1
35-1
22-1
30-1
26-1
36-1
T6-1

9. Example 2: Aggregation path “equipment oriented”, second level.
01-2
07-2
N2-2
N3-2
31-2
02-2
08-2
32-2
11-2
21-2
15-2
17-2
19-2
03-2
12-2
33-2
04-2
13-2
34-2
09-2
16-2
18-2
20-2
05-2
14-2
29-2
10-2
06-2
N4-2
25-2
35-2
22-2
36-2
N6-2

10. Example 2: Aggregation path “equipment oriented”, third level.
01-3
31-3
02-3
32-3
03-3
33-3
04-3
34-3
05-3
35-3
06-3
36-3

11. Example 3: The Physical View, with “zero” as conventional partitioning level.
01-0
07-0
27-0
31-0
N6-0
23-0
02-0
08-0
N3-0
N4-0
28-0
32-0
11-0
21-0
15-0
17-0
19-0
24-0
12-0
N9-0
33-0
03-0
N2-0
29-0
13-0
N5-0
34-0
04-0
09-0
N7-0
16-0
18-0
20-0
25-0
14-0
22-0
05-0
10-0
26-0
N10-0
35-0
06-0
30-0
36-0
Physical View: all shown NEPs are 1:1 with eqp AccessPort, hence Links are 1:1 with PhysicalSpan (ignoring uni/bid property). Note that there could be AccessPorts that do not support NEPs

12. Example 3: (Dis)Aggregation path “routing oriented”, first level.
27-1
N8-1
31-1
N6-1
23-1
28-1
32-1
01-1
N1-1
07-1
N4-1
21-1
17-1
19-1
24-1
02-1
08-1
N9-1
33-1
11-1
N31-1
15-1
29-1
N71-1
25-1
12-1
N51-1
34-1
181-1
221-1
37-1
161-1
201-1
39-1
38-1
162-1
182-1
40-1
N52-1
202-1
222-1
13-1
T6-1
N32-1
N72-1
03-1
N2-1
26-1
09-1
14-1
04-1
05-1
10-1
N10-1
35-1
06-1
30-1
T2-1
T4-1
36-1

13. Example 3: Aggregation path “routing oriented”, second level.
27-2
31-2
N1-2
N3-2
23-2
28-2
32-2
01-2
07-2
24-2
02-2
08-2
33-2
11-2
29-2
25-2
12-2
34-2
37-2
39-2
38-2
40-2
N2-2
13-2
N6-2
03-2
N4-2
26-2
09-2
14-2
04-2
35-2
05-2
10-2
36-2
30-2
06-2
T2-2

14. Example 3: Aggregation path “routing oriented”, third level.
31-3
32-3
01-3
02-3
33-3
34-3
37-3
39-3
03-3
38-3
N2-3
40-3
04-3
05-3
35-3
06-3
36-3

15. Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1
AbstractView for routing purposes
AbstractView for equipment/physical view purposes
Tr-C1-1
Tp-C1-1
C1’-2
01’’
01’’ 11 19
C2-2 12
C1-2 20
C3’-2 16
17’
C4’-2 17
18’
04’ 13 18
C2’-2
04’ 15 14 06 06

16. Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1 (1/5)
“routing” view
“physical” view
Tr-C1-1
Tp-C1-1
01’’
C1-3
01’’ 11 19
C2-2 12
C1-2 20
C3-3 16
17’ 17
C4-3
18’ 18
04’ 13
C2-3
04` 15 14 06 06
Links and 17’-18’ abstract resp and 14-15,
and provide a different view of
Link 17-18

17. Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1 (2/5)
“routing” view
“physical” view
Tr-C1-1
Tp-C1-1
01’’
C1-3
01’’ 11 19
C2-2 12
C1-2 20
C3-3 16 17
17’
C4-3
18’ 18
04’ 13
C2-3
04` 15 14 06 06
Single Link with bandwidth split, red and blue
Links and 17’-18’ abstract resp and 14-15,
and provide a different view of
Link 17-18 19 20
17’
18’
The “physical” NEPs are split in two logical / abstract NEPs 17 18

18. Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1 (3/5)
“routing” view
“physical” view
Tr-C1-1
Tp-C1-1
01’’
C1-3
01’’ 11 19
C2-2 12
C1-2 20
C3-3 16 17
17’
C4-3
18’ 18
04’ 13
C2-3
04` 15 14 06 06
Single Link with bandwidth split, red and blue
Links and 17’-18’ abstract resp and 14-15,
and provide a different view of
Link 17-18 19 20
17’
18’
The “physical” NEPs are split in two logical / abstract NEPs 17 18

19. Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1 (4/5)
“routing” view
“physical” view
Tr-C1-1
Tp-C1-1
01’’
C1-3
01’’ 11 19
C2-2 12
C1-2 20
C3-3 16 17
17’
C4-3
18’ 18
04’ 13
C2-3
04` 15 14 06 06
Single Link with bandwidth split, red and blue
Links and 17’-18’ abstract resp and 14-15,
and provide a different view of
Link 17-18 19 20
17’
18’
The “physical” NEPs are split in two logical / abstract NEPs 17 18

20. Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1 (5/5)
“routing” view
“physical” view
Tr-C1-1
Tp-C1-1
01’’
C1-3
01’’ 11 19
C2-2 12
C1-2 20
C3-3 16 17
17’
C4-3
18’ 18
04’ 13
C2-3
04` 15 14 06 06
Single Link with bandwidth split, red and blue
Tr-C1-2
01’’’
C1-3 19 20
19’
12’
17’
18’
The “physical” NEPs are split in two logical / abstract NEPs
C2-3
13’
06’
17’’ 17 18

21. Example 5: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct abstract views at any level
AbstractView for network purposes
AbstractView for equipment/physical view purposes
T-C1-1
Tn-A1-0
B1-2
03` 05
C3-2
C4-2
C1-2
C2-2 11 14 16 17 18 12 13 15
04` 06
02’`
01’’
T-B1-1
Tp-A1-0
01’
C1’-1 11
11’
12’ 12
12’’
C3’-1
16’ 16 17
C4’-1
04`
13’ 13
13’’ 18
C2’-1 15
17’
04`
B1’-1
04`
18’
03` 14
02’ 05 06

22. Connection End Points and OAM (1/4)
TDM technologies, are CEPs relevant even if not ending a Connection (e.g. “unequipped” case)?
Not really, “uneq” alarm shall be raised when Connection is expected (hence represented).
Tr-C1-1
Tp-C1-1
01’’
C1’-2
01’’ 11 19
C2-2 12
C1-2 20
C3’-2 16
C4’-2
17’ 17
18’
04’ 13 18
C2’-2
04’ 15 14 06 06

23. Connection End Points and OAM (2/4)
The CEPs identify the time-slot/label etc. resource used by the Connection.
A CEP is positioned in the topology through its supporting NEP.
ODU4 CEPs identifying exactly same network resource (time-slot/label etc.)
Tr-C1-1
Tp-C1-1
C1’-2
01’’
01’’ 11 19
C2-2 12
C1-2 20
C3’-2 16
C4’-2
17’ 17
18’
04’ 13 18
C2’-2
04’ 15 14 06 06

24. Connection End Points and OAM (3/4)
Different Route
ODU4 CEPs identifying exactly same network resource (time-slot/label etc.)
Tr-C1-1
C1’-2
Tp-C1-1
01’’
01’’ 11 19
C2-2 12
C1-2 20
C3’-2 16
17’
C4’-2 17
18’
04’ 13 18
C2’-2
04’ 15 14 06 06

25. Connection End Points and OAM (4/4)
CEP abstracting more CEPs?
ODU4 CEP of NEP 19 abstracts the three CEPs on the right
Actually CEP abstract a sub-topology!
Tr-C1-1
Tp-C1-1
C1’-2
01’’
01’’ 11 19
C2-2 12
C1-2 20
C3’-2 16
C4’-2
17’ 17
18’
04’ 13 18
C2’-2
04’ 15 14 06 06

26. How to integrate partitioning/abstraction with layering?
To be developed

27. SIP at NNI, NNI Multi-layer NEP Pool
OTSi Connectivity Service C
OTSi
ODU4
ODU K
OTSi
OTSi
Link
OTSi
Layer=OTSi
Total Capacity=100G
Supported CTP Rates= ODU4
Max # CTP instances=1
OTSi
SIP for the provisioning of ODU4 ConnectivityService is not allowed in case of Link (NNI case)
Pool = yes
Layer=OTSi (TTP rate)
Total Capacity=400G
Supported CTP Rates= ODU4
Max # TTP instances=4
Max # CTP per TTP instances=1

28. SIP at NNI, NNI Multi-layer NEP Pool
ODU4
OTSi
ODU
OTSi
Link
OTSi
Layer=OTSi
Total Capacity=100G
Supported CTP Rates= ODU4
Max # CTP instances=1
OTSi
SIP for the provisioning of ODU4 ConnectivityService is not allowed in case of Link (NNI case)
Pool = yes
Layer=OTSi (TTP rate)
Total Capacity=400G
Supported CTP Rates= ODU4
Max # TTP instances=4
Max # CTP per TTP instances=1

29. Partitioning All nodes are single layer and rate NEP Pools and Links (2/2)
ODU4 Node at higher partitioning level
External NEPs, which
have a SIP, and/or
end a Link
Layer A
Layer A Y X
Layer A Rate A1
Layer A Rate A1
Layer A
Rate A1
Layer A Rate A1
NODE 2
Link
NODE 1
Node
NodeEdgePoint
Device
ConnectivityServiceEndPoint X
ServiceInterfacePoint
ConnectivityService
Connection
Link
Transitional Link
ConnectionEndPoint A
CTP and CTP
CTP and TTP
TTP
CTP
Layer ODU Rate ODU4
Layer ODU Rate ODU4
Link
In this case the NEP Pool is present on both Nodes, because it aggregates NEP with equivalent transmission features plus topological equivalence. This NEP Pool ends a Link Pool.
Pool = yes
Layer=ODU4 (TTP rate)
Total Capacity=400G
Supported CTP Rates= ODU4
Max # TTP instances=4
Max # CTP per TTP instances=1