|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net> To: "nanog@nanog.org Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:03:03 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20130319185033.GA58609@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Mar 20, 2013, at 1:50 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > What I find interesting is that there hasn't been a stronger move to deco= uple control-plane from forwarding plane. Given the design of TCP/IP and the routing protocols, we can't really achie= ve true separation at the protocol level. They simply aren't intended to w= ork with fully de-coupled, separated signal and bearer, in old-style termin= ology. loud As for RP interchangeability in terms of hardware, there's no economic ince= ntive for vendors to do this, as you say. And the designs of RP/backplane/= linecard=20 are highly interdependent. Here's some of the initial thinking which led to the promulgation of LISP: <http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog37/presentations/vince-fuller.pdf> As others have noted, there are a lot of other advantages to separating loc= ator from EID; with a system like LISP, one gains potentially very useful m= echanisms for protocol transitions (i.e., IPv4 to IPv6), network mobility, = 'cloud'-type applications, etc. But the thoughts contained in that preso comprise a great deal of the origi= nal motivation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |