Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C02021F860E for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:01:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.418 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Oxl76nhLFKK for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B09521F86F4 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4101pSj004974 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:01:51 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.10]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:01:51 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "sboutros@cisco.com" , "hshah@force10networks.com" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:01:50 -0400 Thread-Topic: Control of LB state through management plane Thread-Index: Ac0nLZuKAacNrY27T9qOMuVisrt5MA== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FE60A4E52763E84B935532D7D9294FF13552C67A85EUSAACMS0715e_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [PWE3] Control of LB state through management plane X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 00:01:54 -0000 --_000_FE60A4E52763E84B935532D7D9294FF13552C67A85EUSAACMS0715e_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Sami, Himanshu, et al., At presentation fo LDP Extensions to control LI/LB you've suggested that co= ntrol of LB state should be done through data plane only. Is that correct u= nderstanding of your comments? But the RFC 6435 in Section 4 states that LB= function can be configured by management plane. Hence I ask if signaling p= rotocol can be viewed as part of management plane and thus the proposed ext= ension is compliant with the RFC 6435. Your comments and questions greatly appreciated. Regards, Greg --_000_FE60A4E52763E84B935532D7D9294FF13552C67A85EUSAACMS0715e_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Sami, Himanshu, et al.,

At presentation fo LDP Extensions to control LI/LB you've suggested th= at control of LB state should be done through data plane only. Is that corr= ect understanding of your comments? But the RFC 6435 in Section 4 states th= at LB function can be configured by management plane. Hence I ask if signaling protocol can be viewed as par= t of management plane and thus the proposed extension is compliant with the= RFC 6435.

Your comments and questions greatly appreciated.

Regards,

&nbs= p; Greg

--_000_FE60A4E52763E84B935532D7D9294FF13552C67A85EUSAACMS0715e_--