Tom, Last I remember, we gave one “generic” and an access agnostic protocol in the form MIPv6/PMIPv6, they never got it and never cared.
But, if you can sell it to 3GPP, this new control-plane that goes into user-plane, I am with you. :-) Sri On 2/1/18, 4:57 PM, "Tom Herbert" <t...@quantonium.net> wrote: >On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) ><sgund...@cisco.com> 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, > >Bear in mind that "industry" has different meanings depending on the >context. For ILA, and probably for LISP, the intent is to build a >generic protocol that can be used across variety of use cases in the >networking industry which hasn't uniformly adopted CUPS. It's pretty >obvious that we'd want to leverage a single data plane control plane >for these (isn't that the point of generic protocols :-) ). The CUPS >actually architecture helps a lot here by creating a clean well >abstracted interface that should make it straightforward to adapt an >ILA control plane. I think our architecture where we define ILA as an >NF reflects that. > >Tom > >> >> Sri >> >> >> (with no chair hat) >> >> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
