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
