Subject: RE: Proposed dynamic partitioning architecture

From: "Anderson, Todd A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:26:22 -0800

I agree with Avri and I think that these ideas should be the
starting point for requirements.  My guess is that everyone
will agree as to point two.  Point one is a matter of an
implicit vs. an explicit notification of the controller.
Reestablishing adjacency is an implicit notification with all
of its obvious inefficiencies.  Thus, we are left with explicit
notification which requires protocol changes.  We are in a
position to add this to GSMP but as we add additional 
controller types to the MIB/PIB, we may be forced to use the
implicit approach for those controller types that don't support
an explicit resource update message.  Obviously, if we run into
such issues we should notify the corresponding groups to give
them a chance to update their protocol.  Do we have any MEGACO
expert who can speak to their support for an explicit notification?

Todd

> Obviously we have not written any requirements for this yet,
> but my assumption is that repartitioning is not dynamic if it
> requires that existing state be lost or that adjacency needs
> to be reestablished.
> 
> My inclination would be that resources could be added to a 
> partition without difficulty, but that they could only be
> removed if they were not in use.  To remove assigned resources
> that were in use should be prohibited.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> a.
> 
> tom worster wrote:
> > 
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > On Behalf Of Anderson, Todd A
> > >
> > > If we wish to allow for partitions to be dynamically scaled at
> > > run-time there are a couple of issues to be addressed.  First,
> > > who initiates the repartitioning on the switch?  Second, how is
> > > the controller notified of the increase or decrease in resources.
> > 
> > before i get into that, may i first ask about the
> > dynamic partitioning requirements? specifically: is
> > it required that a partition maintain the connection
> > state that is unaffected by the change in available
> > resources to the partition through the repartitioning
> > action?