re: [RRG] Are host-stack modifications allowed or disallowed ?

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> > Provided the LISP-CONS/ALT is just looked as a transitional solution to
the
> > routing scalability issue, the non-upgraded host will suffer the initial
> > packet loss/delay pain, on the contrary, once the host is upgraded to
> > support EID-RLOC mapping query on behalf of the ITR, the end user will
jump
> > out of the pain.
> 
> 	Understand the assertion, but do you have any data to
> 	back it up? If so, that would be interesting. Otherwise,
> 	both conclusions are conjecture.

yes, we need data to see the impact of initial packet loss/delay firstly.
Then...  


> > Besides, it will benefit the ISPs eventually since they do
> > not need to afford the high-cost ITRs which should support full database
(
> > e.g. LISP-NERD), or which should support cache and this mechanism will
> > become a target of DDoS attack.
> 
> 	Again, why should ITRs be "high-cost", and for that
> 	matter, what constitutes "high-cost"?

A lot of ITRs in LISP-NERD need to maintain full EID-RLOC mapping database,
the size of which is hundred times or even more large than that of the
current routing table. Doesn't that mean higher cost?

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