[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] Tunnel fragmentation/reassembly for RRG map-and-encaps architectures



Dino,

 > of "magic" all the problems that motivated development of CEF would
 > disappear in the context of ITR/ETR caches ?  And if they would not

You don't do packet-time population of the cache like CEF did. In LISP, you do packet-time Map-Requests, but the Replies populate the cache at control-plane time. That is the difference, subtle but important.

But the subtle difference also is that before the reply for such request is received you have two choices:

* drop packets /* not saying this is bad .. just static the facts when comparing to today's FIB approach */

or

* forward it to practically non existent and managed by unknown entity virtual GRE based LISP-ALT topology ...

I like APT proposal much more robust in that respect enforcing that all ISPs have a default mapper and locally packets undergo just two stage tunneling process if topologically required.

Cheers,
R.



--
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