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

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Interesting question.

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 suggest 
some?

Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; "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 
draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00


> 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