1. Task 34 Scope – LTP Port (L=Nigel Davis)
Purpose – To investigate the addition of a Port class for LTP
Specifically –
Includes – Producing a slide pack and/or white paper for discussion in the December F2F
Excludes – Updating any existing TRs
External Dependencies – none
Assumptions – none
Risks – none

2. IPR Declaration Is there any IPR associated with this presentation NO
NOTICE: This contribution has been prepared to assist the ONF. This document is offered to the ONF as a basis for discussion and is not a binding proposal on Cisco or any other company. The requirements are subject to change in form and numerical value after more study. Cisco specifically reserves the right to add to, amend, or withdraw statements contained herein.
THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS PROVIDED “AS IS,” WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

3. TMF TR-225 doesn’t need LTP Port (Not a fundamental concept)
TPE == ONF LTP
LT == ONF LP
The protocol stack was intended to be done at the LT level, so no ambiguity requiring LTP Port
In effect TPE was a grouping only

4. TMF TR-225 LTP are just LP groups
Target TMF
Architecture
CTP
Current TMF CP CP
FIP
LR z ‘ ’ AC AP AP AP
Termination
Logical
Interface
ITU
TTP
TCP
FEP
TCP
SNFR
TMF
CTP CP
FIP
ITU
CTP
CTP
LR y AS ’ AP
TPE
Fixed
(degenerate)
Media
Interface
SNFRE
Fig 17
TCP LT
LR x AP
TMF
PTP
TCP
PTP
LR w
Expanded Format
Compact format (as used in TR-215)
Expanded G.805
Rationalized G.805 &
ITU-T G.774 & SID
SID
SID TIP
PTP/CTP
Representation
Information Architecture
Managed Transmission
Device Interface

5. Current ONF CIM Model, LP doesn’t participate in any structure
Note there are 2 types of assoc to LTP 1 – (Asymmetric Component) Port – LTP
2 – (Symmetric) Component - LTP

6. Current ONF CIM Model Issues
The diagrams and the model don’t match (see later slides)
LTP needs ports if it is asymmetric (which it is, so it does)
LP needs ports if it is asymmetric (which it is, so it does)

8. LTP Port types
Client Port ’
Currently we expect to have 3 types of LTP ports and they could be modelled as shown
Coding this in the model structure would limit other future cases (but is worth recording in this investigation)
Coding the role in an Enumerated attribute is a reasonable, more flexible alternative
Server Port
Client Port ’
Server Port
Peer Port

9. The ONF model doesn’t actually match the diagrams we use
Simplified
Diagram form
Further simplified Diagram form
Actual Model Form (ignoring Spec) LP are an ordered array from bottom to top
LP1
LP1
LTP3
Note that the LP ordering implies that the first LP in the list is connected to any lower LTP connection and the last LP in the list is connected to any upper LTP connection. There is no way to represent a connection into the ‘middle’ of a LTP ‘ ’ ’ ’
LP2
LTP2
LP2 ’ ’
List index value
LP3
LTP1
LP5
LP4
LP4
LP3
We will use this simplified form to help in understanding the current model issues only as a convenience in this document
LP5

10. Addition of LTP Port is not enough on its own
Simplified
Diagram form
Further simplified Diagram form
Actual Model Form (ignoring Spec) LP are an ordered array - from bottom to top
LP1
LP1
LTP3 ‘
Client Port ’ ’ ’
We are still missing the LP to port bindings. Since the LTP are of standardised types, we need not repeat this binding in every instance, but can do it once per type in the Spec layer
Server Port
LP2
LTP2
LP2
Client Port ’ ’
Server Port
LP3
List index value
LTP1
LP5
LP4
LP4
LP3
Peer Port
LP5

11. Adding LtpPortSpec completes the picture
Instance model has LTP and LP config info + external linkages
Spec model has LTP and LP structural info (internal linkages)
LP1
LTP3
LP1
LP-T6 ‘ ‘
LTP-T6
Client Port ’ ’ ’ ’
Server Port
LP2
LP2
LP-T2
LTP2
LTP-T7
Client Port ’ ’ ’
Server Port
LP3
List index value
LTP1
LTP-T8
LP4
LP5
LP4
LP3
LP-T1
LP-T2
LP-T2
Peer Port
Peer Port
LP5

12. On the asymmetry of LP
Spec model has LTP and LP structural info (internal linkages)
In our example, the LP are clearly asymmetric, so LpSpec should really have ports too
It is implied that in the LP list in the LTP, the server side of LP entry n links to the client side of LP entry n+1 (as shown in red in the diagram). Note that this limits is to only representing a simple layering of LP in a LTP
Also, it is implied that the server side of the LP connects to the LTP server port and the client side of the LP connects to the LTP client port
When we have a peer LTP (port), we need to say which side of the LTP is connects to ! (the centre in this case ???)
LP Server Side
LP-T6 ‘
LTP-T6
LP Client Side
Client Port ’
LP Server Side
Server Port
LP-T2
LTP-T7
LP Client Side
Client Port
Server Port
LTP-T8
LP Server Side
LP-T1
LP-T2
LP-T2
LP Client Side

13. ? ? ? ? = move to LTP ? Proposed ONF CIM Model
Note there are 2 types of assoc to LTP Port 1 – (Asymmetric Component) Port – LTP Port
2 – (Symmetric) Component – LTP Port
Proposed ONF CIM Model ? ? ?
? = move to LTP ?

14. Proposed LTP, LP Spec Model – Client-Server Cases Only
LtpSpecLpEntry is critical to get the result we need

15. Instance Diagram For Slide 11

16. Proposed LTP, LP Spec Model – Wrong ! – LP connections are per LTP spec
LpPortSpec
LtpSpecLpEntry is critical to get the result we need

17. Proposed LTP, LP Spec Model – General Case
LtpSpecLpEntry is critical to get the result we need
LP Spec Reference in LTP Spec
LP Spec Reference in LTP Spec
Refer also Network Graph Patterns Revisited.pptx

18. Proposed LTP, LP Spec Model – Note the recursion / layering
LP type definition – black box + access ports
LP Spec Reference in LTP Spec
LTP type definition – internals – the LP types and how they connect within the LTP
LTP type definition – externals - black box + access ports
LTP Spec Reference in LTP
LTP and its external connections (+ config of LTP type)

19. Side note – this could lead to a general instance to spec mapping pattern
“Prototypical” Chassis
It seems to make sense when mapping composite associations into the Spec layer to do this
The general pattern of changing assoc end multiplicities from one to many can give odd results

20. Equipment Model Instance Diagram

21. Proposed ONF CIM Model
The change makes Symmetric and Asymmetric cases more consistent (both boundaries are ports) AsymmetricXxHasBoundaryPorts SymmetricXxIsBoundedByLtpPorts
Need to determine what the LtpPort identifier is – can a LTP have many ports playing the same role ?

22. Working Notes