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 decouple > control-plane from forwarding plane.
Given the design of TCP/IP and the routing protocols, we can't really achieve true separation at the protocol level. They simply aren't intended to work with fully de-coupled, separated signal and bearer, in old-style terminology. loud As for RP interchangeability in terms of hardware, there's no economic incentive for vendors to do this, as you say. And the designs of RP/backplane/linecard 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 locator from EID; with a system like LISP, one gains potentially very useful mechanisms 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 original motivation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
