[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
hi diego - see inline
"Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
01/06/2006 09:20
To: Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com
cc: "\"\"'Adrian Farrel'\" <adrian\"", Dimitri
PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Dino
Bramanti <Dino.Bramanti", "Dan Li <danli"
Subject: RE: A new ID is available on the repository
draft-caviglia-ccamp- pc-and-sc-reqs-00
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.
[dp] meaning that you must be ensure that b/f transfer the state is
completely in-sync among all nodes used to be traversed by the LSP
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]
[dp] see my previous post - note the above has an impact on the present
point
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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>