RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds

["Bryskin, Igor" <ibryskin@movaz.com>]

Deborah.
(My hat off since I am talking to a lady)

Have you been in a situation when you just performed a software upgrade and a network operator tells you that your new release sucks and he wants the network in the state of this morning prior to the upgrade? No? Than you are lucky.

Besides, what is the problem with moving "hundreds/thousands of LSPs from CP->MP"? 

Igor

-----Original Message-----
From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS [mailto:dbrungard@att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:43 AM
To: Drake, John E; Bryskin, Igor; Diego Caviglia; Dimitri.Papadimitriou
Cc: " ccamp " <ccamp; " owner-ccamp " <owner-ccamp; Adrian Farrel
<adrian; danli
Subject: RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds


Agree with John, and control plane failures don't (should not/hope not)
impact the data plane state. And before doing such a sw upgrade, I would
not want to have to move hundreds/thousands of LSPs from CP->MP.

I'm not sure myself on what is meant by CP->MP, need to discuss more.

(chair hat off)
Deborah 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Drake, John E
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:13 AM
To: Bryskin, Igor; Diego Caviglia; Dimitri.Papadimitriou
Cc: " ccamp " <ccamp; " owner-ccamp " <owner-ccamp; Adrian Farrel
<adrian; danli
Subject: RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds

Snipped

> 
> Besides I can see at least one quite real application for 
> CP->MP. Imagine that an operator wants to perform some major 
> software upgrade with a new software version significantly 
> incompatible with the previous one.

JD:  Except that we go to great pains to ensure that this situation
never occurs.