[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Dimitri,
Removing state should be a simple process of deleting local control plane state while not impacting the data plane state. Exporting, at least to me, implies a more complicated API or other information transaction processing, which is certainly not needed here.
I think we're talking about a mechanism that should require a single "preserve data plane" bit in a PathTear message. Nothing more. 

Lou

At 12:14 PM 8/25/2006, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:


lou - isn't "remove" or "export" having the same meaning in the present
context ?




Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
25/08/2006 17:57

        To:     Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
        cc:     Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, "Farrel, Adrian"
<adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Dan Li"
<danli@huawei.com>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>,
"Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "Don Fedyk"
<dwfedyk@nortel.com>, "Bryskin, Igor" <ibryskin@movaz.com>, "Drake, John
E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>, "Li, Han" <lihan@chinamobile.com>
        Subject:        RE: CP-->MP Issue (was RE: Polling for new WG
I-Ds)


Who said anything about exporting state?

At 11:51 AM 8/25/2006, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:

>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