- To: "Jonathan Lang" <jplang@calient.net>
- Subject: RE: Two week Last Call on LMP (Sections 12.3.3 and 12.3.4)
- From: "George Young" <george.young@meriton.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:41:13 -0500
- Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
- Thread-Index: AcFx46GEpjxwbmQHSJ2CW6NVysfwIAArWvGg
- Thread-Topic: Two week Last Call on LMP (Sections 12.3.3 and 12.3.4)
Hello Jonathan,
See below:
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: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:49 AM
>To: George Young
>Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: 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 |------+
> | |
> +---------+
>
Removing the Deg state simplifies the Link FSM as it's present in
the TE FSM. Editorially then (I think), transition 2 would not take
place from Test/PasvTest to Down.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>