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

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:02:30 -0400

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, [email-masked] 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" <[email-masked]>
>25/08/2006 19:22
>
>         To:     "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <[email-masked]>, "Farrel,
>Adrian" <[email-masked]>
>         cc:     "ccamp" <[email-masked]>, "Dan Li" <[email-masked]>,
>"Diego Caviglia" <[email-masked]>, "Don Fedyk"
><[email-masked]>, "Drake, John E" <[email-masked]>, "Lou
>Berger" <[email-masked]>, "Li, Han" <[email-masked]>,
><[email-masked]>, Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL,
>"Bryskin, Igor" <[email-masked]>
>         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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:08:23 +0200

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

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

-d. 

Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
25/08/2006 21:02
 
        To:     Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
        cc:     "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>, "Farrel, Adrian" 
<[email-masked]>, "ccamp" <[email-masked]>, "Dan Li" 
<[email-masked]>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <[email-masked]>, 
"Diego Caviglia" <[email-masked]>, "Don Fedyk" 
<[email-masked]>, "Bryskin, Igor" <[email-masked]>, "Drake, John 
E" <[email-masked]>, "Lou Berger" <[email-masked]>, "Li, Han" 
<[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
        Subject:        RE: CP-->MP Issue - non-issue

Dimitri,

Lou

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:14:31 -0400

Dimitri,

See below.

>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%.

>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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:00:14 +0200

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.

25/08/2006 21:14
 
        To:     Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
        cc:     Lou Berger <[email-masked]>, "Farrel, Adrian" 
<[email-masked]>, "ccamp" <[email-masked]>, "Dan Li" 
<[email-masked]>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <[email-masked]>, 
"Diego Caviglia" <[email-masked]>, "Don Fedyk" 
<[email-masked]>, "Bryskin, Igor" <[email-masked]>, "Drake, John 
E" <[email-masked]>, "Li, Han" <[email-masked]>, "Ong, 
Lyndon" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
        Subject:        RE: CP-->MP Issue - non-issue

Dimitri,

See below.

Lou

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:47:15 +0200

-d.

Hi Folks,

Cheers,

Lyndon