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

RE: CP-->MP Issue - non-issue

Dimitri,
not sure about past discussions, but you're characterization of (at least) my position is just plain wrong. I don't think this has anything to do with "unreliable control plane operations". As I said before, the requirement for this comes from the need to have a symmetric operation to gain acceptance by some carriers.
From your previous mail, it sounds like you think this capability already exists. Given this, what's your objection here? 

Lou

At 01:47 PM 8/25/2006, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:


i agree on this CCAMP has/is building a self-consistent set of mechanisms
(from the start CCAMP considered that the MP has not being fallback
whatsover of the CP operations and in particular not linking any of its
operations to a particular MP)

all what i am hearing from igor and co. is just penalizing the work of
this group achieved since 6 years without technical justification ***
there is no need for MP intervention in order to obtain CP operations
resiliency/reliability *** second time we have such discussion (look back
on the archive around end-october 2005, nov.2005 you will see there that
the same people already pushed forward the idea of unreliable control
plane operations - if someone's implementation is unstable/unreliable it
is not up to CCAMP to solve such issue and certainly not by interfering
with the MP)

ps: add also add CP GR restart (from intermediate and source node)

-d.




"Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>
25/08/2006 19:22

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


Hi Folks,

Just a bit worried that this discussion may be causing the impression
that
control plane is somehow unstable and requires some kind of special
backup!

Deborah and other carrier representatives can attest that control plane
(although not necessarily standard GMPLS) has been deployed and in
operation
in a number of carrier networks for some years without experiencing any
major failures.  There are already methods in use for ensuring the
reliability
of the control plane such as redundant control processors, non-volatile
storage of control plane data, software verification and testing, etc.

I don't believe it was the intention of GMPLS work to require some kind
of
fallback to central management system control, hopefully everyone agrees
on this!

Cheers,

Lyndon