Re: Moving right along ...

[Sudheer Dharanikota <sudheer@nayna.com>]

Hi Yangguang:

Yangguang Xu wrote:

> Kireeti,
>
> >
> > > Is it correct to simply include content of individual drafts into
> > > a WG draft that is in last call without adequate data on whether it
> > > handles all the different cases?
> >
> > Clearly not.  Are you suggesting that that was what was done?
> >
> > It is a judgment call to include significant new material into a
> > document in last call.  In this instance, handling restart of the
> > control plane is of sufficient importance to warrant inclusion.
> > That said, this inclusion happened some time ago (late July);
> > your comment would have been more timely then.
> >
> > In any case, it would be more helpful if you pointed out
> > scenarios that are missing, and even better if you had concrete
> > suggestions to fix things.
>
> Besides some "corner" issues raised recently yet not answered or answered
> publicly. I've some non-corner questions.
>
> To me, what carriers want are (1) How to preserve data path when control
> channel/entity fails? (2) How to resync/recover data path information after
> failure recovers?
>

Agreed on the requirements.

>
> 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. 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.
>

On (2) what other options do we have?

With distributed control plane (GMPLS), the neighboring entities
will preserve the information a failed NE needs. Yes
this may be little scary if we donot trust our control plane... in that case
we need to solve the scaring issues.

- sudheer

>
> Cheers,
>
> Yangguang