[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)
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)
>>=20
>>=20
>> Hi Young,
>>=20
>> 1. Yeah events 1.evCCup and 2.evCCDown has to be added in the=20
>> Data Link FSM's in the down state also. Agreed.
>I would actually propose that we remove the degraded state=20
>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?
>
>>=20
>> 2. Transtition 10:evLnkDealloc can be possible know even in=20
>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=20
>event. If this
>> is possible then this event is required in this state. Kindly=20
>> clarify me.
>agreed.
>
>>=20
>> 3. Also event 14.evdcDown can also possible in Test/Pasv=20
>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=20
>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=20
>> next state in both the case will be down.
>ok.
>
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>> Ramesh
>>=20
>> George Young wrote:
>>=20
>> > 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=20
>> 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=20
>channel is
>> > required to coordinate taking the channel down at both=20
>> 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=20
>> 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=20
>> 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.
>> > >
>> > >
>>=20
>>=20
>