I’ve learned that by creating profile parameters ResourceInputConnections/ResourceOutputConnections and use them as a Resource Capability, SRM is able to automatically filter the resources based in the connections.
Can someone clarify how to configure this profile parameters in order to achieve this result?
Hi Bruno,
You can use any capability parameter to support such a use case. Let’s use ResourceInputConnections/ResourceOutputConnections you’re mentioning in your post.
In case you have 2 nodes ( node 1 and node 2 ) and , selecting a resource for Node 1 should automatically select a resource for node 2, can indeed be achieved by mean of a capability parameter:
- On resources compatible with ‘node 2’ , add a ResourceInputConnections capability of type string and set its value to the name of the ‘node 1’ resource
- On profile definition associated with ‘node 2’ function, add the ResourceInputConnections capability parameter
- Configure a DTR (Data Transfer Rule ) , so that selecting a resource for ‘node 1’ will copy the resource name to the ResourceInputConnections parameter on ‘node 2’
The common identifier is based on ‘node 1’ resource name; however it can be also be achieved with resource property or even resource capability ( in case the resource name is subject to change). You just have to make sure that their value match on both node 1 resource name/property/capability and node 2 resource capability.
The example illustrate a 1 to 1 relationship ( selecting a resource for node 1 only provides one resource for node 2 ) ; however same principle can also apply for setup where there is a 1 to many relationship ( ie : selecting a specific resource for node 1 should limit resource selection for node 2 to the resources part of the same chassis )
Hi Bruno,
In those parameter discrete options you need to have a value for each Interface name.
Then in your resources you need to add the discrete options that it supports.
E.g.:
For the following Service Definition:
This resource would be supported, because it supports ASI:
This one wouldn’t as it only supports TSoIP:
