Re: Moving right along ...

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Yangguang,

> I still don't have good answers to (1), which is a hard requirement. I
> understand the solution may be a local decision. Yet, if local behavior may
> impact interworking, it's better be specified.

One could make a statement along the lines of: "please try to
keep your data plane going if the control plane dies", if that
helps.  LMP talks about this ...

> For (2), I have a fundamental
> requirement question: does recover/resync from neighbor NE (what's being
> proposed by Ping Pan) acceptable to transport service providers? because this is
> not conventional done in transport network.

Is running GMPLS conventional in transport networks? :-)

What is the conventional behaviour in transport networks if the
control plane goes down?  How is recovery done?  That would be
a useful data point (for me, anyway).

As for the fundamental requirement, it is more like: do you
want your data plane to keep going if the control plane crashes?
Recovery/resync from neighbor is a mechanism, not a requirement.
Of course, there is also the question whether such a mechanism
is acceptable to carriers.

Kireeti.