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

["Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>]

Lou,




Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> on 25/08/2006 17.49.26

To:    "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>
cc:    "Bryskin, Igor" <ibryskin@movaz.com>,
       <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be>, "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.
[dc] This is exactly what we have in mind.
Lou

>Regards,
>Don