[Interop-dev] Network Device JSON Schema

Nemesis (spam-protected)
Sun Oct 26 18:43:20 CET 2014


On 10/26/2014 03:50 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
> I guess that ventures too munch into the meta domain.
> Let's first try to get to a common ground without. :-)

I agree.

> For what it matters, we use this rather minimal format:
> {
>     "name" : "foobar",
>     "firmware" : "ffbi-0.3",
>     "community" : "somecity",
>     "geo" : "52.02513078 8.55887",
>     "links" : [
>         { "smac" : "b0:48:7a:f6:85:76", "dmac" : "8c:21:0a:d8:af:2b",
> "qual" : 251 },
>         { "smac" : "2a:88:01:80:6b:93", "dmac" : "ee:51:43:05:1f:ef",
> "qual" : 255 }
>     ],
>     "clientcount" : 2
> }

Let's see.. we have name, firmware, geo, links and clientcount, it looks
like a node on a map web interface more than a network device, is that
the case?

Something in common is probably "firmware" (even though in what we
proposed there's "os" and "os_version". Also, nothing should stop anyone
from mixing customs attributes with what we would come up with.

On 10/25/2014 11:54 PM, Jernej Kos wrote:
> Hello!
> Please also check out the nodewatcher-agent schema, which has an
> implementation. The main difference to your proposed schema is that it
> is not monolithic, but is modular, with each module's output being
> versioned.
>   https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-agent
>   https://github.com/interop-dev/network-device-schema/issues/1

Thanks for posting the full JSON here:

So, let me recap why I am doing this:

  * everybody of us is using a different structure to represent "stuff"
    in our networks
  * the "stuff" gets passed from app to app, sometimes changing
    structure in apps of the same community
  * we don't have a clear definition of what that "stuff" is, a
    geographic object? a server? a router? a link? all or some of those?

What i think is achievable in a short time:

  * define what a network device is
  * create a JSON schema to represent a network device only, we can
    define other objects (eg: links) in future steps
  * start offering this format in our apps and software - we would not
    have to give up what we currently use, we might offer both formats
    if that is more convenient

So I start asking you few questions.

*1. *Have you ever felt the need of having a widely used standard
structure to represent network-devices?

*2. *Do you agree with this definition?

/A network device is any device which is connected to a layer2 or layer3
network and should provide some basic information/ (let's define what
this minimum information is).

*3. *Do you like the idea of starting small?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.funkfeuer.at/pipermail/interop-dev/attachments/20141026/ed87a9f4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.funkfeuer.at/pipermail/interop-dev/attachments/20141026/ed87a9f4/attachment.sig>

More information about the Interop-dev mailing list