[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Two week Last Call on LMP (Sections 12.3.3 and 12.3.4)
George,
Please see inline.
Thanks,
Jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Young [mailto:george.young@meriton.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:34 AM
> To: Jonathan Lang
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Two week Last Call on LMP (Sections 12.3.3 and 12.3.4)
>
>
> Hello Jonathan,
>
> Comments/question below. Also please note, edgeFlow has
> changed its name
> to Meriton Networks Inc., and as a result the email address changes to
> george.young@meriton.com.
>
> Regards,
> George R. Young
> Meriton Networks Inc.
> 329 March Rd., Kanata, ON, Canada, K2K 2E1
> phone: +1 613-270-9279 Ext 287
> fax: +1 613-270-9268
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:jplang@calient.net]
> >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:21 PM
> >To: 'S Ramesh'; George Young
> >Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Jonathan Lang
> >Subject: RE: Two week Last Call on LMP (Sections 12.3.3 and 12.3.4)
> >
> >
> >Ramesh,
> > Please see inline.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Jonathan
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: S Ramesh [mailto:rashanmu@npd.hcltech.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 11:15 PM
> >> To: George Young
> >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: Two week Last Call on LMP (Sections 12.3.3 and 12.3.4)
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Young,
> >>
> >> 1. Yeah events 1.evCCup and 2.evCCDown has to be added in the
> >> Data Link FSM's in the down state also. Agreed.
> >I would actually propose that we remove the degraded state
> >altogether from
> >the data link fsms. This is already captured at the TE link level.
> >Comments?
>
> If I understand your response to messrs Ramesh and moi, transition 10
> should be retained from Deg to Down.
> If you then remove the Deg state, implying that in the Up/Alloc state
> you may not have a control channel, where would transition 10 go?
>
> Transition 13 'fault localization' seems to need a control channel.
> Without the Deg state, how would you represent the idea that sometimes
> transition 13 can't take place?
What I'm proposing is that we decouple the notion of a control channel with
the data link FSMs. As Ramesh said in an email, some of these events can be
generated through management interface also. For active data link, the FSM
would be:
+------+
| |<-------+
+--------->| Down | |
| +----| |<-----+ |
| | +------+ | |
| |5b 3| ^ | |
| | | |2,7 | |
| | v | | |
| | +------+ | |
| | | |<-+ | |
| | | Test | |11 | |
| | | |--+ | |
| | +------+ | |
| | 5a| 3^ | |
| | | | | |
| | v | | |
|2,12 | +---------+ | |
| +-->| |14 | |
| | Up/Free |----+ |
+---------| | |
+---------+ |
9| ^ |
| | |
v |10 |
+---------+ |
| |13 |
|Up/Alloc |------+
| |
+---------+
>
> >
> >>
> >> 2. Transtition 10:evLnkDealloc can be possible know even in
> >the degraded
> >> state. Yeah a control channel is needed, but this event
> can also be a
> >> external event know, from the user or a network management
> >event. If this
> >> is possible then this event is required in this state. Kindly
> >> clarify me.
> >agreed.
> >
> >>
> >> 3. Also event 14.evdcDown can also possible in Test/Pasv
> >Test state. Since
> >> to send a Test message or to receive a Test message we need a data
> >channel.
> >> If you see both the FSM's ( Data link ) event 3 & 4 will
> >pose the next
> >> state to Test & Pasv Test state from Up/Free state. So the event
> >> 14.evdcDown is also possible on both the states and hence the
> >> next state in both the case will be down.
> >ok.
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ramesh
> >>
> >> George Young wrote:
> >>
> >> > Looking at the Data Link FSMs in Sections 12.3.3 and 12.3.4 of
> >> > draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-02.txt:
> >> >
> >> > 1) It appears that in the Down state, the control channel
> >> can be either
> >> > up or
> >> > down. That being the case, there should be transitions
> for events 1
> >> > :evCCUp:
> >> > and 2 :evCCDown: from Down to Down.
> >> >
> >> > 2) Transition 10:evLnkDealloc: from Deg to Down would
> appear to be
> >> > impossible,
> >> > as there is no control channel available, and the control
> >channel is
> >> > required to coordinate taking the channel down at both
> >> ends. I believe
> >> > this
> >> > transition should be removed.
> >> >
> >> > With these changes, the FSMs would look like:
> >> >
> >> > 12.3.3. Active Data Link FSM Description
> >> >
> >> > Figure 5 illustrates operation of the LMP active data
> >> link FSM in a
> >> > form of FSM state transition diagram.
> >> >
> >> > 1,2
> >> > +------+
> >> > | |
> >> > | +------+
> >> > +-->| |<-------+
> >> > +--------->| Down | |
> >> > | +----| |<-----+ |
> >> > | | +------+ | |
> >> > | |5b 3| ^ | |
> >> > | | | |2,7 | |
> >> > | | v | | |
> >> > | | +------+ | |
> >> > | | | |<-+ | |
> >> > | | | Test | |11 | |
> >> > | | | |--+ | |
> >> > | | +------+ | |
> >> > | | 5a| 3^ | |
> >> > | | | | | |
> >> > | | v | | |
> >> > |2,12 | +---------+ | |
> >> > | +-->| |14 | |
> >> > | | Up/Free |----+ |
> >> > +---------| | |
> >> > +---------+ |
> >> > 9| ^ |
> >> > | | |
> >> > v |10 |
> >> > +-----+ 2 +---------+ |
> >> > | |<--------| |13 |
> >> > | Deg | |Up/Alloc |------+
> >> > | |-------->| |
> >> > +-----+ 1 +---------+
> >> >
> >> > Figure 5: Active LMP Data Link FSM
> >> >
> >> > 12.3.4. Passive Data Link FSM Description
> >> >
> >> > Figure 6 illustrates operation of the LMP passive data
> >> link FSM in a
> >> > form of FSM state transition diagram.
> >> >
> >> > 1,2
> >> > +------+
> >> > | |
> >> > | +------+
> >> > +-->| |<------+
> >> > +---------->| Down | |
> >> > | +-----| |<----+ |
> >> > | | +------+ | |
> >> > | |5b 4| ^ | |
> >> > | | | |2,8 | |
> >> > | | v | | |
> >> > | | +----------+ | |
> >> > | | | PasvTest | | |
> >> > | | +----------+ | |
> >> > | | 6| 4^ | |
> >> > | | | | | |
> >> > | | v | | |
> >> > |2,12 | +---------+ | |
> >> > | +--->| Up/Free |14 | |
> >> > | | |---+ |
> >> > +----------| | |
> >> > +---------+ |
> >> > 9| ^ |
> >> > | | |
> >> > v |10 |
> >> > +-----+ +---------+ |
> >> > | | 2 | |13 |
> >> > | Deg |<--------|Up/Alloc |-----+
> >> > | |-------->| |
> >> > +-----+ 1 +---------+
> >> >
> >> > Figure 6: Passive LMP Data Link FSM
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > George R. Young
> >> > edgeflow Inc.
> >> > 329 March Rd., Kanata, ON, Canada, K2K 2E1
> >> > phone: +1 613-270-9279 Ext 287
> >> > fax: +1 613-270-9268
> >> >
> >> > >-----Original Message-----
> >> > >From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> >> > >Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 9:00 PM
> >> > >To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> >> > >Subject: Two week Last Call on LMP
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >Hi All,
> >> > >
> >> > >This is to announce a two week Last Call on the LMP draft:
> >> > >draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-02.txt. This Last Call ends COB
> Wed Nov 28.
> >> > >
> >> > >Please send questions, comments and requests for clarifications
> >> > >to the CCAMP list.
> >> > >
> >> > >Kireeti.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >
>