Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

Lukasz Bromirski lukasz at bromirski.net
Mon Apr 18 14:27:59 CDT 2011


On 2011-04-18 21:18, Jeff Wheeler wrote:

> I strongly disagree with the assumption that the number of
> locations/sites would remain static.

It would grow, nobody said it would remain static.
But still - it will grow slower than the number of new
"full" allocations - covering both location *and* id.

> LISP "solves" this problem by using the router's FIB as a
> macro-flow-cache.  That's good except that a site with a large number
> of outgoing macro-flows (either because it's a busy site, responding
> to an external DoS attack, or actually originating a DoS attack from a
> compromised host) will cripple that site's ITR.

Scalability is one of the points traditionally left for
the end, but that's hardly different from any protocol
that was designed and then put into mainstream use. Second - you
actually don't know that for sure - the mix of "from LISP" and
"from normal IP" traffic would change in time, and the natural grow
of the capabilities with the higher adoption would propably also
affect ITR/ETR scalability numbers.

> In addition, the current negative mapping cache scheme is far from
> ideal.  I've written a couple of folks with a provably superior scheme
> (compared to existing work), and have received zero feedback.  This is
> not good.

You mean LISP authors?

-- 
"There's no sense in being precise when |               Łukasz Bromirski
  you don't know what you're talking     |      jid:lbromirski at jabber.org
  about."               John von Neumann |    http://lukasz.bromirski.net




More information about the NANOG mailing list