RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds

["Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>]

> 
> 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.

JD: This means reverting to the previous version of control plane
software,
not the CP->MP->CP detour.

> 
> 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. 
> 
> 
>