Re: Report of CUSP design team research and welcome U involving into this work

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 09 March 2018 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D2F12426E for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 04:24:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XOeCYExtREdA for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 04:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE975126C26 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 04:24:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17174; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1520598285; x=1521807885; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=zZs8bk325WxT+XBYyZk4zrL5YGofWN6y/tl0qFaDCig=; b=Ffsk1Y5eE0dP8HAsxB+W55aF7quwlQOLwBuHquCyNbk9STYbmkrfXOXc 8ai46EMb+8v+8r/IjGjpHet1dASerVZNf4Z07HolGvO1A9t8W8dZl46UZ dAGJXT2FU3ifIU2U7IjiLiyPaELgplfHcA25iELHLuJJKDt9xrBuBKdAP w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DeAABPfKJa/4kNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJadmZvKAqDRooejXeCAnsbgjKMV4UhFIIBCiWFAAIagnY?= =?us-ascii?q?hNBgBAgEBAQEBAQJrJ4UjAQEBBCNWEAIBBgIRAQIBAisCAgIwFwYIAgQBDQW?= =?us-ascii?q?DGwSBFkwDFQ+OdZ1tgiaIZ4IVBYU2gi6DPCmCTjaBLIICAoE1AgJYgmkwgjI?= =?us-ascii?q?EiDVMijiHHAkCiVaHEY5hkSACERMBgSsBHjgNgUVwFWQBghgJhD93AYl0gRc?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,445,1515456000"; d="scan'208,217";a="365375318"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Mar 2018 12:24:44 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w29COiwP004994 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:24:44 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 07:24:43 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 07:24:43 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?6aG+IOaIjg==?= <gurong_cmcc@outlook.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
CC: "victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com" <victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com>, "hushujun@chinamobile.com" <hushujun@chinamobile.com>, "russ@riw.us" <russ@riw.us>, "gurong@chinamobile.com" <gurong@chinamobile.com>, "shares@ndzh.com" <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: Report of CUSP design team research and welcome U involving into this work
Thread-Topic: Report of CUSP design team research and welcome U involving into this work
Thread-Index: AQHTt1DlVO84QHk13EqHlWyqC8HebqPH1JKA
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:24:43 +0000
Message-ID: <BCF97F84-23D7-48EA-BBF5-665AA8E869D8@cisco.com>
References: <HK2PR02MB12514F5935AD5C273FA8B2C98BDE0@HK2PR02MB1251.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HK2PR02MB12514F5935AD5C273FA8B2C98BDE0@HK2PR02MB1251.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BCF97F8423D748EABBF5665AA8E869D8ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/kVOcOiZESpBJQryrzG3oeITtMM4>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:24:50 -0000

Hi Gu,

Have you implemented this BGP deployment model or is it still in the IETF draft and powerpoint phase? If it has been implemented, can you share any benchmarks?

Acee

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of 顾 戎 <gurong_cmcc@outlook.com>;
Date: Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 11:32 PM
To: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>;
Cc: "victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com"; <victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com>;, "hushujun@chinamobile.com"; <hushujun@chinamobile.com>;, Russ White <russ@riw.us>;, "gurong@chinamobile.com"; <gurong@chinamobile.com>;, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>;
Subject: Report of CUSP design team research and welcome U involving into this work


Hi, dear all.



Here we give a short introduction of CUSP design team research work. Recently CloudCO project on CU separation BNG device has been approved. Now WT-384 is now approved and officially TR-384. In TR-384, the CU-separated BNG architecture is provided with control plane (BNG-CP) and user plane (BNG-UP) separation. This new architecture brings several advantages such as centralized session management, flexible address allocation, and high scalability and cost-efficient redundancy and so on.



Besides the architecture, there are reserved work to be done with details. Here we present several related drafts.

(1) One is the "Information model of control plane and user plane separation BNG" which describes the information model of BNG-CP and BNG-UP in order to form the related data model.
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cuspdt-rtgwg-cu-separation-infor-model-00.txt

(2) Another is "Deployment Model of Control Plane and User Plane Separated BNG" introducing the deployment of CU-Separation BNG.

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cuspdt-rtgwg-cu-separation-bng-deployment-01.txt



(3) Besides the draft "Requirement for the protocol of the control plane and user planes separation BNG" involving the communication protocol requirement of BNG-CP and BNG-UP.

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cuspdt-rtgwg-cusp-requirements-01.txt



Any comments are welcomed.



Gu Rong

gurong_cmcc@outlook.com

gurong@chinamobile.com