[Interop-dev] Multi-Topology information with NetJSON

[Nemesis]

Proposal here:
https://github.com/interop-dev/netjson/commit/d100897785e467de164c321ee8a1ffe6cd69d20a


On 08/11/2015 02:20 PM, Henning Rogge wrote:
> The new field should be an arbitrary string. It is useful if you have
> multiple routing topologies with the same metric.
>
> Example:
>
>
> {
> "type": "NetworkRoutes",
> "protocol": "PROTOCOL-NAME",
> "version": "PROTOCOL-VERSION",
> "revision": "PROTOCOL-REVISION",
> "topology_id" : "PROTOCOL-TOPOLOGY",
> "metric": "PROTOCOL-METRIC",
> "router_id": "ROUTER-ID",
> ...
>
> and
>
> {
> "type": "NetworkGraph",
> "protocol": "olsr",
> "version": "0.6.6",
> "revision": "5031a799fcbe17f61d57e387bc3806de",
> "topology_id" : "0",
> "metric": "etx",
> "router_id": "172.16.40.24",
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Nemesis <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>> Hey Henning,
>>
>> On 08/11/2015 01:33 PM, Henning Rogge wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> while working with my multi-topology code I noticed a small problem
>>> with NetJSON.
>>>
>>> My earlier idea was that the tuple (router_id, metric) would be an
>>> unique identification for a topology... unfortunately it is not.
>>>
>>> We are currently working on "limiting" a topology to a subset of
>>> nodes, but still using the same metric.
>>>
>>> I would suggest adding an (optional?) "topology_id" field to the
>>> header of both NetworkRoutes and NetworkGraph object, so we have an
>>> unique identifier for each topology.
>> What's your proposed definition of a "topology_id" attribute?
>>
>> Federico
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Interop-dev mailing list
>> (spam-protected)
>> https://lists.funkfeuer.at/mailman/listinfo/interop-dev