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

Re: [RRG] Consensus check: mapping granularity



On 3/20/08 7:23 AM, Robin Whittle allegedly wrote:
I don't understand what the problem is with having one, many, or
most EID prefixes (LISP) or micronets (Ivip) being a single IPv4
address.
One of the major benefits of ALT (actually, the only one, I think)
is that it can have endless divisions of the address space, without
burdening the ITRs, since they only cache whatever mapping they need
at the time.  So there's no scaling problem due to the number of
EIDs in terms of the ITRs or the conceptual nature of the ALT system
- you just add more ETRs and/or more storage capacity in these ETRs.
The problem is in fact on the sender side, the ITR side.  The receiver 
side, and LAT aren't problems, but smaller mapping granularity can cause 
problems for the encapsulator's cache strategy.  You need to think about 
how many individual endpoints a typical medium organization connects to, 
and figure out how much memory it would need.  What about Google, which 
needs to communicate with most endpoints in the world, and often?  Cache 
generally doesn't work in a situation like that.  They would have to 
aggregate into prefixes themselves, and carefully manage which ITR send 
to which prefix.
--
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