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

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] 代表 Tony Li
> 发送时间: 2008年1月10日 18:05
> 收件人: Noel Chiappa
> 抄送: rrg@psg.com; dino@cisco.com
> 主题: Re: [RRG] Tunnel fragmentation/reassembly for RRG map-and-encaps
> architectures
> > The second
> > is, 'if not, is it practical to keep the full map'? Because if the
> > answers
> > are 'no' and 'no', it's back to the drawing board....
> 
> 
> That very much goes to the granularity of the map.  If you go to a
> per-host map, then I have some concerns.  It would make things very
> expensive.  However, the number of places that would have this level
> of expense is very, very small.  Architecturally, it might still fly.
> 
With regard to per-host map, even the number of places carrying full map is
very, very small, I believe we still need to adopt the distributed mapping
database, like CRIO or CONS, so as to scale well. CONS is an overlay just
for mapping purpose, not for user traffic forwarding, if the cache mechanism
is not acceptable for the reason of latency, initial packet loss or the DDoS
attack risk, is CRIO or home agent in Mobile IP an option?  The major
drawback of CRIO or home agent mechanism is longer forwarding path, so can
we use some anycast mechanism together to alleviate this pain?

Best wishes,
Xiaohu Xu



--
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