Subject: Re: WG LAST CALL of draft-ietf-forces-requirements-03.tx t - May 10-24

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:37:00 -0700

Thanks for the comments, Alex.
I'll try to answer the 3rd question below.

Hormuzd

Shyam prasad wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have a few questions/comments on the draft. I am new to this group.
Sorry
> if the questions are elementary ones.
>
> 1. Are CEs and FEs expected to be part of a single system? If the answer
is
> yes, isn't implementing security mechanisms such as IPSec/IKE for ForCES
> protocol an overkill?
>

Section 7.4 (Multihop)  states that CE and FE may be seperated by more than
one hop. This may justify use of IPSec/IKE.

>
> 2. The requirements draft does not mention FE redundancy and failover. I
> think FE redundancy support would involve certain amount of CE-FE control
> messaging if CE is viewed as the master and FE, the slave.
>

See section 7.8 (CE Redundancy or CE Failover). I think this section also
covers

FE redundancy/failover.

>
> 3. Section 5, point #6 says that an FE MUST be able to asynchronously
inform
> the CE an increase/decrease in available resources or capabilities on the
> FE. Can this requirement be extended to enable FEs to notify failures
(port
> failure, internal fault, etc.)?
>
[HK] This requirement & section 7 #13 is suppose to cover any failure
notification
by the FE. The example talks about change in the number of ports (port down
event).

> Thanks.
> Shyam