[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Two Drafts for Resilience of Control Plane
- To: "Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <zali@cisco.com>, Kim Young Hwa <yhwkim@etri.re.kr>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: RE: Two Drafts for Resilience of Control Plane
- From: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Xy/KC/QEQUOOD9b+s8ebToX45nE5kCMvHPscXK0oAaRP30jBIYeBx2+T9CSZOaFdvy7keIbVFd0ptAO23NxGGJ08g4ExLgMirGdKUoYSSsNcZxGpHSFdG2lq97NJrr6EgUuwcz4xNCfKREynW+qgX9F/m2ix5uwZaWGDxZwedKs= ;
- In-reply-to: <BABC859E6D0B9A4D8448CC7F41CD2B07C4AF16@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com>
Zafar,
The problem arises when the control plane is decoupled
from the data plane. The question is do we need such
decoupling in IP networks? Consider, for example, the
situation when several parallel PSC data links bundled
together and controlled by a single control channel.
Does it mean in this case that when the control
channel fails all associated data links also fail? Do
we need to reroute in this case LSPs that use the data
links? Can we rely in this case on control plane
indications to decide whether an associated data link
is healthy or not (in other words, can we rely on RSVP
Hellos or should we use, for example, BTD)? Should we
be capable to recover control channels without
disturbing data plane? I think control plane
resilience is important for all layers. You are right,
Internet does work, however, we do need for some
reason TE and (fast) recovery in IP as much as in
other layers,don't we?
Cheers,
Igor
--- "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am unable to understand the problem we are trying
> to solve or
> fabricate. My control network is IP based and IP has
> proven resiliency
> (Internet *does* work), why would I like to take
> control plan resiliency
> problem at a layer *above-IP* and complicate my
> life. Did I miss
> something?
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards... Zafar
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Kim Young Hwa
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:04 AM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Two Drafts for Resilience of Control Plane
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I posted two drafts for the resilience of control
> plane.
> One is for requirements of the resilience of
> control plane, the
> other is for a protocol specification as a solution
> of that .
> These are now available at:
>
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kim-ccamp-cpr-reqts-01.txt
>
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kim-ccamp-accp-protocol-00.txt
>
> I want your comments.
>
> Regards
>
> Young.
>
> ====================================
> Young-Hwa Kim
> Principal Member / Ph.D
> BcN Research Division, ETRI
> Tel: +82-42-860-5819
> Fax: +82-42-860-5440
> e-mail: yhwkim@etri.re.kr
> ====================================
>
>
<http://umail.etri.re.kr/External_ReadCheck.aspx?email=ccamp@ops.ietf.or
>
g&name=ccamp%40ops.ietf.org&fromemail=yhwkim@etri.re.kr&messageid=%3C863
> 0a6db-0c31-49ab-a798-13b0dda04553@etri.re.kr%3E>
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com