[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Two Drafts for Resilience of Control Plane

igor -
over time CCAMP came with a set of mechanims to improve control plane resilience (RSVP and LMP GR upon channel/node failure) other WG protocol work are also usable used here OSPF GR, etc. ... on the other side, mechanism such as link bundling have built-in resilience capabilities and most GMPLS control plane capabilities have been designed such as to be independent of the control plane realisation (in-band, out-of-band, etc.)
so indeed i share the concern of Zafar what could we do more here than document these tools and provide our experience in using them;
now, before stating there are (potential) problems(s) arising - would you please be more specific on what are these potential issue(s) and/or problems ? (not related to policy/config. - note: all the issues you have pointed here below are simply policy/config specific but none of them highlights a missing IP control plane resiliency feature) 

thanks,
- dimitri.


Igor Bryskin wrote:


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 


.