[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP
On 8 dec 2007, at 19:23, Shane Amante wrote:
I think this can be solved by giving each ETR a small range of
addresses rather than a single one. For instance, if the mapping
system tells the ITR that an ETR has 240.0.0.5/29 then the ITR
could send one flow towards 240.0.0.0, another flow to 240.0.0.1
and so on.
1) As one of the instigators to get Dino to move to the UDP
approach for load-balancing, I can say we discussed this, but it was
ruled out, since it creates administrative overhead for operators/
administrators to acquire and /properly configure/ a large enough
subnet on the ETR to get 'decent' load-balancing over LAG's, etc.
through the core.
So? If we put in the spec that you MUST assign a /29, /28 or what have
you to an ETR and all ITRs automatically use that entire address
range, they'll simply have to do it or it won't work.
The lack of address space doesn't sound convincing to me either, today
everyone with an AS number has at least a /24 and obviously not
everyone with an AS is going to run ETRs as that way we don't save any
routing table state.
I'm not convinced that the load balancing issue amounts to much in the
first place, by the way. In the vast majority of cases traffic will
come from many different places so load balancing will happen without
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg