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

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

Lou,
     you are right the first version of the ID (that was about the protocol
solution) used a bit in the Administrative Obj in order to inform the TNE
to not remove the data plane state but just the control plane.

As you said is a very little and very simple modification.

Regards

Diego



Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> on 25/08/2006 18.32.06

To:    Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
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>, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org

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

Dimitri,
         Removing state should be a simple process of deleting local
control plane state while not impacting the data plane
state.  Exporting, at least to me, implies a more complicated API or
other information transaction processing, which is certainly not needed
here.

I think we're talking about a mechanism that should require a single
"preserve data plane" bit in a PathTear message.  Nothing more.

Lou

At 12:14 PM 8/25/2006, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:

>lou - isn't "remove" or "export" having the same meaning in the present
>context ?
>
>
>
>
>Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
>Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>25/08/2006 17:57
>
>         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>
>         Subject:        RE: CP-->MP Issue (was RE: Polling for new WG
>I-Ds)
>
>
>Who said anything about exporting state?
>
>At 11:51 AM 8/25/2006, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:
>
> >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