[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
my answers in line.
"Stephen Shew" <firstname.lastname@example.org>@ops.ietf.org on 20/07/2005 12.22.49
Sent by: email@example.com
To: "\"ccamp\" <ccamp"
Diego, my suggestion for this draft is that it separate the mechanism
(not setting the cross connects specified in an ERO), from the reason
for doing so. This is because the mechanism could be used for more than
just CP<->MP handoff.
[dc] Hmmm I've defined that application mainly for two reason:
1 up to my knowledge that is the 'killer application' for this kind of
2 my understanding of CCAMP is that a good motivation needs to be
provided to modify GRSVP-TE and this leads to point 1
If you do this then the bit should be renamed something like
"cross-connection exists" and if set, then the signaling
protocol does not tell the cross connection to set/release it.
[dc] That is how it works apart for the name of the flag.
Did you consider a generalization of this where in the ERO, each element
has this type of flag? If so, you could use the mechanism to say
replace two LSPs where the tail of one is next to the head of the other,
with a single LSP. The action would be to signal an ERO containing
connection details of each LSP that have the flag on, and where they
join, have the flag off.
[dc] If I've understood corretly your point, what you are saying is a
little bir different from what the ID proposes. I mean in your exaple you
have two different LSPs that already have some control plane information
associated with them and you want to splice them together. In this case
you have to replace the CP information while the ID proposes to add CP
information to a XC that don't have it. Do you agree with that?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Diego Caviglia
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 05:44
> To: Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com
> Cc: ""Dimitri.Papadimitriou" <Dimitri.Papadimitriou"; "ccamp"
> <ccamp; "gnewsome" <gnewsome; "adrian" <adrian
> Subject: RE: Moving LSP ownership between control plane and
> management plane
> Sorry for this but may be not all have read the ID, I hope
> that having the text help the discussion.
> Network Working Group
> Internet Draft
> Diego Caviglia
> Document: draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02.txt Marconi
> Proposed Status: Updates RFC 3473
> Dino Bramanti
> Expires: December 2005
> Nicola Ciulli