Hi Vijay,
some answers in line.
Regards
Diego
"Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com>@ops.ietf.org on
01/06/2006
04.34.12
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
To: "'Adrian Farrel'" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>,
Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Diego Caviglia <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>,
Dino Bramanti <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com>
Subject: RE: A new ID is available on the repository
draft-caviglia-ccamp- pc-and-sc-reqs-00
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
case
of MP -> CP conversion, right?
[dc] Yes, unless Dimitri calirifies better what he intend with state[a]
and
state[b]
Regards,
Vijay
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:18 PM
To: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Diego Caviglia; Dino Bramanti
Subject: Re: A new ID is available on the repository
draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00
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.t
xt
.
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