In order to ease
migration, it will help if BNGs are able to handle multiple peers with
different versions (e.g. a 3.2 compliant BNG implementation able to work with
a 3.1 AN and a 3.2 AN). Although implied by the protocol, we may want to
explicitly state that version compatibility requirement is on an adjacency
basis.
The draft will also
need to define how the version incompatibility between BNG and AN needs to be
handled.
-Sanjay
From:
ancp-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan Kavanagh
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:30
AM
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec);
ancp at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ANCP] ANCP Protocol
Versioning
Cheers
Woj
The only point i
would note (excuse if it was already raised on Monday as i did not attend) is
"backward compatibility" between the different versions of 3.1, 3.2 and future
versions if/when/as needed. this should be noted in the
draft.
Alan
From:
Wojciech Dec (wdec) [mailto:wdec at cisco.com]
Sent: July 29, 2009 3:33 AM
To: Alan Kavanagh; ancp at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [ANCP] ANCP Protocol
Versioning
Not entirely. ANCP already has a
versioning field, hence nothing new is being defined. Also strictly
speaking there is no distinction between version and sub-version, so the
choice of 3.2 is purely based on custom (it can equally well have been
4.0).
Of course this will mean that all
"pre-rfc" implementations will automatically be 100% incompatible with the
rfc.
-Woj.
From: Alan
Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavanagh at ericsson.com]
Sent: 28 July 2009 19:28
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec);
ancp at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [ANCP] ANCP Protocol
Versioning
Hi Woj
et.al
So are we agreeing
that option 1 as noted on slide 15 in the Thomas's presentation is what was
agreed on at yesterdays meeting?
BR
Alan
K
From:
ancp-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wojciech Dec
(wdec)
Sent: July 28, 2009
5:30 AM
To: ancp at ietf.org
Subject: [ANCP] ANCP Protocol
Versioning
Hi
All,
During yesterday's ANCP WG
meeting at IET75 we discussed the topic of ANCP versioning and in the room
arrived at the following conclusion:
The Pre-RFC version of ANC will
continue to be 3.1 as per draft-ietf-ancp-protocol, however an RFC Editor's
note will be introduced to change version from 3.1 to 3.2 upon publication
of the RFC. This will clearly de-lineate any pre-RFC implementations with
post-RFC ones and alleviate the operators'' problems presented
(http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ancp-3.ppt)
Going beyond the publication of
the RFC, the introduction of new capabilities or TLVs is expected to be
handled by the capability negotiation mechanism (and new capabilities) or
possibly by generalizing the notion of sub-capability currently in place for
the multicast-control use-cases.
We would like to get feedback
from the wider WG on the above, especially in terms of anyone who was not
able to voice their opinion at the meeting. Based on the received feedback,
we'll make a call regarding the WG consensus on this
matter.
Regards,
Woj.