Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
From: Jeff Wheeler <jsw () inconcepts biz>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:18:46 -0400

2011/4/18 Lukasz Bromirski <lukasz () bromirski net>:
LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location*
prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would)
withdraw the original aggregate prefix. And as no matter how
you count it, the number of *locations* will be somewhat
limited vs number of *PI* address spaces that everyone wants

I strongly disagree with the assumption that the number of
locations/sites would remain static.  This is the basic issue that
many folks gloss over: dramatically decreasing the barrier-to-entry
for multi-homing or provider-independent addressing will, without
question, dramatically increase the number of multi-homed or
provider-independent sites.

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.

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.

We may of course argue that the current routers are pretty
capable in terms of processing power for control-plane, but

We agree that the ability to move tasks from the router to an external
control plane is good.  BGP may get better at this as time goes on,
too.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler <jsw () inconcepts biz>
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]