[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp- pc-and-sc-reqs-00
some answers in line.
"Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com>@ops.ietf.org on 01/06/2006
Sent by: email@example.com
To: "'Adrian Farrel'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
cc: email@example.com, Diego Caviglia <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>,
Dino Bramanti <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com>
Subject: RE: A new ID is available on the repository
Adrian and Dimitri,
Not sure why we need extra requirements to handle this case. Also not sure
why CP needs to guarantee identical states at [a] and [b]. May be I am not
understanding the case that is being pictured here.
The way I read the requirements, once the control is transferred to MP
(i.e., CP[a] -> MP), CP should forget everything about this LSP, Isn't it?
[dc] That is the idea.
If this is true, then MP -> CP[b] should be treated as the ONLY general
of MP -> CP conversion, right?
[dc] Yes, unless Dimitri calirifies better what he intend with state[a] and
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:18 PM
Cc: email@example.com; Diego Caviglia; Dino Bramanti
Subject: Re: A new ID is available on the repository
It would certainly be the case that the picture you draw could arise. I
guess we would describe this in terms of SPCs. Is it necessary that
identical state is held at [a] and [b]. In particular, the question of
Session ID and LSP ID spring to mind.
Yes, we need clear requirements for this type of situation. Want to
----- Original Message -----
To: "Adrian Farrel" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: <email@example.com>; "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>;
"Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository
> agreed -
> question: in case of move CP->MP who guarantees that the CP at state [b]
> retrieves its states it had at [a] e.g.
> do we need a specific requirement for this case ?
> "Adrian Farrel" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent by: email@example.com
> 25/05/2006 19:53
> Please respond to "Adrian Farrel"
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Diego Caviglia"
> cc: "Dan Li <danli", "Dino Bramanti"
> Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository
> Hi Diego,
> Thanks for putting this I-D together. I think it gives a much clearer
> picture of what you are trying to achieve with your discussion of moving
> control of an LSP between the management plane and the control plane.
> This seems like a reasonable set of requirements to me, and I would like
> see some discussion from folk on whether they think this is valuable
> and whether we should start to look for protocol solutions.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Cc: "Dan Li <danli" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Dino Bramanti"
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:48 AM
> Subject: A nerw ID is available on the repository
>>A new ID is available on the ID repository
>> The ID states some basic requrements for the possibility of turning a
>> Permanent Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and
>> versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic, no solutions are
>> proposed in the ID.
>> From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent
>> Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice
>> versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried
>> over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be
>> seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an
>> existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management
>> Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched.
>> This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a
>> Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network.
>> Comments and suggestions are very welcome sxpecially from the carrier