OK - That makes sense. For scaling a CP, it only about redundancy, correct, but with the DP it's really about scaling up and out. But still, a CP is no longer on the bus with the DP, nor on the network. It's on the WAN/Internet, and latencies are orders of magnitude greater. Is anybody doing this and are those latencies acceptable?
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 2:59 PM Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > With a reasonable design, it separates the scale issues of the control > plane from the scale issues of the data plane. And since the relationship > between those two scale factors is different for different deployments, it > allows you as an operator to build for your needs. It also, with suitable > designs separates the failure modes. > > Whether either of those applies in your case probably depends upon your > needs and what vendors you find useful. > > Yours, > > Joel > On 3/22/2023 5:53 PM, Tom Mitchell wrote: > > What is it about the architecture that makes it a preferred solution. I > get that centralizing the user databases makes sense, but why the control > plane. What benefit does that have? > > -- Tom > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 2:17 PM <brian.john...@netgeek.us> wrote: > >> The CUPS makes a lot of sense for this application. Latency is dependent >> on the design, and equipment used. I’ve seen/done several designs for this >> using two different vendors equipment and two different BNG software >> stacks. >> >> When I do a design for BNG from scratch, this is how I do it now. :) >> >> As always… YMMV. >> >> - Brian >> >> On Mar 22, 2023, at 4:02 PM, Tom Mitchell <tmitch...@netelastic.com> >> wrote: >> >> Anyone have any thoughts on this CUPS thing? I have a customer asking, >> but it seems the lack of CP resiliency and additional latency between the >> DP and CP make this a really dumb idea. Has anyone tried it? Does it make >> any sense? >> >> Thanks! >> >> >>