RE: Moving forward with VCAT/LCAS...

["Stephen Shew" <sdshew@nortel.com>]

Sorry about the delay in responding, I don't check this list daily.

A connection can't exist outside of a call.  However, if you mean can a
server call (with associated connection) exist outside of a client (in
this case VCAT) call, the answer is yes.  The model I'm responding from
assumes that a VCAT call contains only one VCG, and that it has a
relationship with one or more server layer calls where those server
layer calls contain a connection or connections.  It's a more general
model for inverse mux. The server layer call could exist ahead of time,
and then be allocated to a client call.

The client could also disassociate itself from a server layer call and
it is an independent decision as to whether that server layer call then
releases its connection(s) and terminates.  If it stays up, it could be
associated with a different client call at a later time.

Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: January 10, 2008 21:34
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Moving forward with VCAT/LCAS...

Stephen,

In this architecture, can a connection exist outside a call and then be
designated as a connection that fulfils the service identified by the
call?

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Shew" <sdshew@nortel.com>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:04 PM
Subject: RE: Moving forward with VCAT/LCAS...


Greg, I support these requirements.  In transport architecture, layers
are separated and this allows a business separation of service.  The
relationship between the client layer (VCAT in this case) and server
layer should be policy driven.  That is, the setup/teardown of server
layer LSPs in response to client layer requests, should not be
automatically coded in a protocol/implementation, but be subject to a
policy decision.

An additional requirement that's similar to (a), would be to be able to
use an existing LSP in response to a VCAT setup.

Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Greg Bernstein
Sent: January 8, 2008 12:28
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Moving forward with VCAT/LCAS...

Hi CCAMPers, at the Vancouver meeting the status of the VCAT/LCAS draft
was discussed and there seemed to be two possible additions to the
requirements section of the draft. From the slide presentation these
were:

(a) Be able to set up member LSPs (and data plane LSPs -- server
connections) prior to creation of VCG (Virtual Concatenation Group).
(b) "Member" LSPs (data plane and control plane) can exist after a VCG
using them has been removed.

For those interested in VCAT/LCAS what is your opinion on these
additional requirements? This is a WG draft so polling of the list is
required (right Adrian?). I'll clean up the language if there is a
desire to add these to the current draft. Note that these requirements
may break or require rework of the current "multiple co-signaled member
sets" solution in the draft.

Regards

Greg B.

--
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237