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

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

lou - and why shall CCAMP provide a function to export states outside of 
its domain of competence

thanks,
- d.




Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
25/08/2006 17:49
 
        To:     "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>
        cc:     "Bryskin, Igor" <ibryskin@movaz.com>, Dimitri 
PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, "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>
        Subject:        RE: CP-->MP Issue (was RE: Polling for new WG 
I-Ds)



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