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

[Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>]

> Dino,
>
> > > Whether "it's not at all bad" depends on the locality of the  
> > > traffic.
> >
> > Right, the guys at UCLB are gathering data on this.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > To preserve "truth in advertising" the LISP spec needs (a) to  
> > > clearly
> > > spelled out the assumptions you make about the locality of the
> > > traffic, as well as (b) to document the system behavior if these
> > > assumptions
> > > turned out to be incorrect.
> >
> > Right, but we don't have the data yet so that is why it's not
> > documented.
>
> Just because "we don't have the data yet" is *not* a valid reason for
> why (a) and (b) are "not documented". This is because to document
> *assumptions* does not require the data - the data is required to
> test the assumptions. Likewise, documenting the system behavior if
> the assumptions turned out to be incorrect does not require the
> data.

We are assuming, at this point, nothing in terms of traffic locality.  
We are assuming the cache can be as large as the number of sites. But  
you can make guesses easily that a few number of sites will have to  
hold this large of a mapping database.

Dino

--
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