Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

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.

MP->CP[a]->MP->CP[b]? 

do we need a specific requirement for this case ?






"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
25/05/2006 19:53
Please respond to "Adrian Farrel"
 
        To:     <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Diego Caviglia" 
<Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
        cc:     "Dan Li <danli", "Dino Bramanti" 
<Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com>
        Subject:        Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository 
draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00


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 
to 
see some discussion from folk on whether they think this is valuable work, 

and whether we should start to look for protocol solutions.

Thanks,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: "Dan Li <danli" <danli@huawei.com>; "Dino Bramanti" 
<Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:48 AM
Subject: A nerw ID is available on the repository 
draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00


>A new ID is available on the ID repository
> 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00.txt
.
>
> The ID states some basic requrements for the possibility of turning a
> Permanent Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and 
vice
> versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic, no solutions are
> proposed in the ID.
>
> Abstract
>
>   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
> community.
>
> Regards
>
> Diego
>
>
>
>
>
>