[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 assistence.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.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