RE: Two Drafts for Resilience of Control Plane

["Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <zali@cisco.com>]

<snip>
> >> >
> >> > Igor,
> >> >
> >> > W.r.t. option C, please note that traffic CANNOT be 
> forwarded in a 
> >> > "head-less mode" for a very long time . If you control
> >> network melts
> >> > or a peering controller goes down, either RSVP GR or 
> refreshes will 
> >> > take care of the clean-up of the affected RSVP states.
> >> Similarly LMP
> >> > CC SM will go down (after states are cleared, i.e.,
> >> degraded-to-down),
> >> > eventually removing the TE links from topology.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sticking to the example I described:
> >> a) absence of RSVP refreshes does not affect data plane in any way;
> >> b) use of LMP is not mandatory and, becides, I don't see 
> now it helps.
> >> True, the TE link could be withdrawn, however, the LSP 
> will still be 
> >> operational
> >
> > Isn't the problem is at "B" only and control plane at the 
> other node 
> > (or controller for other nodes) still working fine? If yes, local 
> > controllers will withdraw RSVP states; hence correct the data plane.
> >
> 
> Again, GMPLS controller cannot remove control state and 
> destroy data plane just because it does not get refreshes 
> from adjacent controllers.

Then how states get ever destoryed, even in normal case, e.g., if head
end sends a ptear and all controllers are up? 

Thanks

Regards... Zafar 

<snip>