Absolutely! A programmable data plane what FPC interface is offering, keeps the CUPS objectives.
Sri On 2/1/18, 5:07 PM, "ila on behalf of Marco Liebsch" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >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 > >_______________________________________________ >ila mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ila _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
