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

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

lou 

> Given this, what's your objection here?

that the move that we're discussing is not due to issues of CP 
resiliency/reliability/capability/or anything else equivalent

i have pointed this to authors since the initial e-mail that started all 
this thread - hence, i can think of reason to allow for such move - but 
not at all for the reasons expressed since so far

-d. 





Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
25/08/2006 21:02
 
        To:     Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
        cc:     "Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>, "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>, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>, "Li, Han" 
<lihan@chinamobile.com>, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
        Subject:        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