Re: CP-->MP Issue (was RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds)

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

diego -

using your metaphore - if the plane explodes/crashes you can have the 
nicer parachute it won't be of great help - meaning it is clear that is 
not this process/parachute that is going to increase confidence in CP if 
the problem is more fundamental and in part. not technical 
(confidence/trust/etc.)

ps: operations are NOT symmetric (if you mean reflective since CP =/= 
distributed MP)





"Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
24/08/2006 09:09
 
        To:     ccamp@ops.ietf.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        CP-->MP Issue (was RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds)



In my mind the CP->MP feature can be useful for mainly two purposes:
1)    symmetricity with the companion feature (MP->CP)
2)    a sort of "parachute" in case something went wrong with the CP (Igor
made an example on this but another one could a foreseen problem with the
      signalling network, or may be the CP is not running well and its
restoration time are not in line with the expectation, or there is a merge
of    two different networks organizations and the resulting one is not
going to use -may be only at initial stage of merging process- the CP, 
...)

We (the authors of the ID) agreed with Dimitri that CP->MP is not a must
and I have no problem to move it to should/shall/may state.

Is this in the scope of CCAMP? I think it is because is CP related and 
imho
having such parachute can increase the confidence of carriers in CP.  I
mean I prefer to take a plane if I know I have a parachute on board.

However the focus of the ID is on MP->CP handover and if the community is
strongly against of CP->MP even in the form of a should/shall/may
requirement we can strip this out.

Regards

Diego