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

["Bryskin, Igor" <ibryskin@movaz.com>]

Approximate scenarios:

a) MP->CP scenario:

MP provides CP with complete ERO (including labels)
CP signals SETUP with an IN-PLACE attribute, this causes provisioning operations on each node without re-programming cross-connects
MP releases resource ownership after the operation by some means

b) CP->MP scenario:

MP receives from CP complete RRO (including labels)
MP assumes resource ownership operation by some means
CP signals TEARDOWN with an IN-PLACE attribute, this causes release by CP resources on each node without re-programming cross-connects

Igor

-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
[mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 12:18 PM
To: Bryskin, Igor
Cc: Farrel, Adrian; ccamp; Dan Li; Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; Diego
Caviglia; Don Fedyk; Drake, John E; Lou Berger; Li, Han;
owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: CP-->MP Issue (was RE: Polling for new WG I-Ds)


you are asking for something outside the scope of ccamp

entity X wants to recuperate a CP state - just let it do - if so allowed

then send a PathTear since there is no resource anymore associate to that 
state (but this does not require any specific documentation)

-d.





"Bryskin, Igor" <ibryskin@movaz.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
25/08/2006 18:06
 
        To:     "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>, Dimitri 
PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
        cc:     "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>, "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)


Agree with Lou.

Can I also quote my own email? :=)

"We are
talking here about a capability of CP to acquire network resources and
build CP state for an LSP without actually re-programming crossconnects
(case MP->CP). Likewise, we are talking about capability of CP to release
resources and destroy CP state for an LSP without re-programming
crossconnects (case CP->MP). It is out of scope of those mechanisms how MP
(or any other plane) assumes or yields the ownership of resources of the
LSP whose ownership is transferred from/to CP."

So I think we are talking about two relatively simple and very symmetrical 
CP functions.

Igor

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 11:57 AM
To: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Cc: Lou Berger; Farrel, Adrian; ccamp; Dan Li; Brungard, Deborah A,
ALABS; Diego Caviglia; Don Fedyk; Bryskin, Igor; Drake, John E; Li, Han
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