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

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

lou - 

one justification i was thinking of is the move of a connection outside CP 
control for off-line testing between specific segments (nodes 
interconnected by "passive" equipment for inst.)

thanks,
- dimitri.










Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
25/08/2006 21:14
 
        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>, "Ong, 
Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
        Subject:        RE: CP-->MP Issue - non-issue


Dimitri,

See below.

At 03:08 PM 8/25/2006, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:

>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

Assuming I understand what you're saying (i.e., that there is no 
motivation to have this feature due to failings/limitations of the 
control plane) then I agree 100%.

>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

okay, I'll bite.  What are the reasons/justifications for this that 
you belive  in?

Lou
>-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