I think we should rather relax the dependency between control and data plane. If we treat the data plane as nodes which enforce policies (encap, recap, re-write, etc), any c plane may suit and enforce suitable policies in the selected data plane nodes, e.g. by utilizing the DMM group’s FPC models. Any solution that binds the data plane to a particular control plane may constrain its deployment, no?
marco On 2. Feb 2018, at 01:39, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]> wrote: >> One thing to add. LISP has a more mature control-plane mapping system. >> ILA has a recent proposal for its control-plane. > > Mobility architectures started with a unified CP/UP approach, then the > industry thought its a great idea to move the Control-plane out, and > reduce the state in the User-plane, and eliminate tunnels. Now, we want to > eliminate the tunnels, but we need a new control protocol to manage the > binding tables, and manage the complex cache states. Wondering, what¹s > wrong with this picture? What de we name this new CUPS architecture? > > > Sri > > > (with no chair hat) > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
