[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: CP-->MP Issue (was RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds)
- To: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>
- Subject: RE: CP-->MP Issue (was RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds)
- From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:49:26 -0400
- Cc: "Bryskin, Igor" <ibryskin@movaz.com>,<Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be>, "Dan Li" <danli@huawei.com>,"Farrel, Adrian" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>,"Li, Han" <lihan@chinamobile.com>
- In-reply-to: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA40A3AB60A@zrtphxm2.corp.nor tel.com>
- References: <BEB6BF9CB4B0BB42B4DD494AA16D59CF013BAFF6@atlntex01.movaz.com> <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA40A3AB60A@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com>
Don,
At 10:40 AM 8/25/2006, Don Fedyk wrote:
I think there may be something here but I think even the requirements as
stated assume too much of the solution. What is the real issue?
Per my previous e-mail:
At 01:01 PM 8/24/2006, Lou Berger wrote:
At 10:48 AM 8/24/2006, Don Fedyk wrote:
[...]
If we were to ask could you live without the CP->MP feature what
response would we get versus asking if CP->MP is a soft requirement.
From the discussions I've had on this with carriers, for some it's
a don't care, for others they won't deploy control plane without
this capability.
Lou
AND
At 08:15 AM 8/24/2006, Lou Berger wrote:
[...]I therefore think the definition of CP->MP *is*
required. There are multiple options for meeting this requirement,
but the solution must provide the "fallback" capability for services
existing at the time of the initial MP->CP transition and those
created after the transition.
[...]
I think a capability to remove LSP state while leaving forward state
untouched will meet the requirements of those I've talked with.
Lou
Regards,
Don