RE: draft-minei-mpls-ldp-planned-restart-00.txt & draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-hello-gr-admin-00.txt

["zafar ali" <zali@cisco.com>]

Hi Ina, Rahul, Albert, et al

Thanks for your reply. We have a similar draft in CCAMP that formalized
procedure for disabling RSVP GR (and Hello) (see,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-hello-gr-admin-
00.txt for details). 

The requirements/ motivations for the two drafts in question are
similar. Ideally what you would like to do in your draft is to also be
able to turn LDP GR on and off on the fly. I hope the two drafts will
get the same treatment from the WGs (adding CCAMP). 

Thanks

Regards... Zafar

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf 
>Of Ina Minei
>Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 6:35 PM
>To: zafar ali
>Cc: 'MPLS wg'; tian@redback.com; 'Rahul Aggarwal'; 'Loa 
>Andersson'; 'George Swallow'
>Subject: Re: draft-minei-mpls-ldp-planned-restart-00.txt
>
>
>
>	Zafar,
>
>	3478 details the procedures for doing graceful restart 
>in the case where the capability will be used irrespective of 
>the cause of the crash.
>
>	The proposed enhancement deals with a situation where 
>the operator wants to perform graceful restart only when he is 
>doing a planned upgrade. Why? Because a planned upgrade is a 
>controled environment. This is mostly a comfort-level issue 
>for the operator and a good way to let him convince himself 
>that the feature is working as expected. Many operators are 
>wary of graceful restart, but would really like to see 
>graceful upgrades.
>
>				Ina
>
>On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, zafar ali wrote:
>
>> Hi Ina, Rahul and Albert,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not sure about motivation behind this draft. Why procedures in 
>> RFC 3478 are are NOT enough to address planned outages? This 
>question 
>> was also raised at the last MPLS WG meeting but I did not hear any 
>> convincing answer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards... Zafar
>>
>>
>