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

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

Dimitri,
         removing the control plane state of a crossconnection without
touching the data plane imho is in the scope of CCAMP.

Also because, but this is in the scope of a solution document, can be done
via Control Plane.

Regards

Diego



Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be on 25/08/2006 17.51.38

To:    Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
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>,
       "Bryskin, Igor" <ibryskin@movaz.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)

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