Folks,
at IETF91 we received the valid comment to converge on a definition of the term
'anchor'.
In the FPSM discussion, we so far distinguished Data-Plane Anchor (DPA),
traditionally a downlink encap function,
Data-Plane Node (DPN), which is more located in the access to terminate
tunnels, and
Hi Marco,
I definitely agree that a DP node can play different role; quoting the PMIP
example, a node can play either à MAG or LMA role, or even both rôles. A single
name thus makes sense. However, the term anchor is à bit confusing since it
refers implicitely to HA/ LMA. So, i suggest to use D
anchor out of a data-plane node, not a specification and the architecture
behind.
marco
From: pierrick.se...@orange.com [mailto:pierrick.se...@orange.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2014 15:10
To: dmm@ietf.org; Marco Liebsch
Subject: Re: [DMM] Data-Plane anchors in a control-/data-plane separa
De : Marco Liebsch [mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu]
Envoyé : jeudi 18 décembre 2014 15:45
À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN; dmm@ietf.org
Objet : RE: [DMM] Data-Plane anchors in a control-/data-plane separated
deyploment
Hi Pierrick,
thanks for the feedback. Agree that we can avoid the anchor term
still be
applicable here.
Regards
Sri
From: Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:03 AM
To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [DMM] Data-Plane anchors in a control-/data-plane separated d
@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] Data-Plane anchors in a control-/data-plane separated
deyploment
Marco,
Should some of this discussion on terminology be part of the other
arch/deployment spec ? We should use a consist terminology across all of these
4 documents. I think the discussions we have had
14 3:03 AM
> To: "dmm@ietf.org"
> Subject: [DMM] Data-Plane anchors in a control-/data-plane separated
> deyploment
>
> Folks,
>
> at IETF91 we received the valid comment to converge on a definition of the
> term ‘anchor’.
> In the FPSM discussion, we so far dis
> Is there such a thing? I did not know that.
What thing ?
There are 4 work items that we discussed and that the chairs are tracking.
One of the work item is Architectural/Deployment considerations. Please
refer to presentations in IETF90 and IETF89. Also, there were two f2f
discussions during I
5
> À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN; dmm@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [DMM] Data-Plane anchors in a control-/data-plane separated
> deyploment
>
> Hi Pierrick,
>
> thanks for the feedback. Agree that we can avoid the anchor term, since there
> is always some
> expectation on suc
