<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><b>Zones</b><br>
are zone intended for routing only or are they also geographic
zones?<br>
Do we need to have 2 separate tables one for routing zones and one
for geographic zones or can they be joined together?<br>
Do zones have routing protocol info in it? I'd suggest a
"default_protocol" field.<br>
in CNML now zones are rectangular. Is there anybody that would
like to have them polygonal?<br>
<br>
Shall we define a Zone?<br>
Me and Ralf propose the following:<br>
<i>A zone is an indpendent part of a network which is run by a
group of people in a geographic location.<br>
</i></font><i><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Zones can
be nested (how many levels of nest?).</font><br>
It should be possible to extract information from one or several
zones.<br>
Every zone is free to run its own nodeDB server.<br>
Different nodeDB servers shall be interoperable with other zones.<br>
Interoperability is achieved with a RESTful API</i>.<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Devices & Servers</b><br>
in the existing nodeDB i haven't seen yet (i haven't studied them
all in detail eheh) servers.<br>
We probably need to be able to store different type of devices in
a database:<br>
</font>
<ul>
<li>access points (meaning stuff like ubiquiti NanoStation M5 -
what's the most correct name?)<br>
</li>
<li>servers (a very expensive brand new machine :D for example)<br>
</li>
<li>routers (yes.. a nanostation is also a router.. it's a tricky
business this one)<br>
</li>
<li>more stuff? managed switches?<br>
</li>
</ul>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Making different database
tables would mean duplicating relations with interfaces and ip
addresses.<br>
Maybe this stuff should all go on a single table called "device"
and we should have "types" or "categories".<br>
<br>
<b>Routing protocol</b><br>
a device might have more than one routing protocol, think a case
in which a node functions as a bridge between 2 networks with
different routing protocols.<br>
The routing protocol could be installed on a server or an access
point, or any other machine that has enough resources to run it,
that's why I advice to have a single table for devices.<br>
In my opinion routing protocols should be related to the device
table and it should be possible to assign more than one to a
single device.<br>
<br>
Please share your opinions and contribute to the discussion.<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-signature"><br>
<b>Federico Capoano</b><br>
Web Designer & Web Developer<br>
Portfolio/Blog: <a href="http://nemesisdesign.net">nemesisdesign.net</a><br>
Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/nemesisdesign/">@nemesisdesign</a><br>
PGP Key ID: 308BD46E</div>
</body>
</html>