[RRG] Tradeoff between anycast and tree-hierarchy

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

Hi All,

LISP+CONS and ALT are based on tree-hierarchy overlay, and the initial
traffic will be allowed to travel along the overlay in order to avoid
initial packets loss. However, this approach not only results in a longer
forwarding path but also a high forwarding pressure on the highest-level
nodes (like honey point). The initial traffic volume is not in the same
magnitude with the query messages in DNS hierarchy.

APT and ivip, based on the anycast idea, not only avoids the long path and
large-latency for the initial packets but also share the initial traffic
pressure among the different default mappers. However, they are not so
scalable to support host or micro-net granularity.

Could we consider some tradeoff between these two approaches? For example,
replace the default mapper with multiple mappers which are responsible for
different address-prefix blocks in APT and ivip, or allocate multiple
highest-level nodes in CONS or ALT, which are responsible for the same
address block, to many different network locations. 

Best regards,
 
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