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" wrote:
>I think we should rather relax the dependency between control and data
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"
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
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
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
> 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
One thing to add. LISP has a more mature control-plane mapping system. ILA has
a recent proposal for its control-plane.
Dino
> On Feb 1, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
> wrote:
>
> Thank you Dino.
>
> WG - Same comments for this draft. LISP is another
Thank you Dino.
WG - Same comments for this draft. LISP is another LOC-ID proposal, with
many common attributes (if I may say, like two twins) shared with ILA;
some differences in how the Locator (COA) and identifier (HOA) spaces are
defined/used/managed, and with one key difference of
> ILA is one of the proposals on the table. This is not an adoption call at
> this time, but asking the WG to review and open up some discussions that
> will help IETF understand the problem/solutions, and pick the right
> solution(s) for this problem statement. If there is interest and if the
>
Thank you Tom and Kalyani for your submission.
WG - During the adoption of
draft-matsushima-spring-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane, we did say that we will
consider alternative approaches for the problem statement around mobile
user-plane optimization, and that we will not limit to SRv6 as the only
Hello,
We posted this draft that describe using ILA for the mobile network
use case, and some specifics about using ILA in 5G.
We like like to request that the dmm WG consider ILA as a candidate
protocol for the 3GPP "Study on User Plane Protocol in 5GC".
Comments are appreciated!
Thank you,
Hello folks,
I would like to propose a bit of reorganization for the current policy
handling as specified in the current FPC document.
Roughly speaking, a policy can exist in one of three "forms".
A policy definition can be referenced in an Indexed Set by making use of
a Policy Key. This
Will now go during weekdays through 2/23.
Lyle
This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole
use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete
12 matches
Mail list logo