On 2011-04-18 21:18, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
I strongly disagree with the assumption that the number of locations/sites would remain static.
It would grow, nobody said it would remain static. But still - it will grow slower than the number of new "full" allocations - covering both location *and* id.
LISP "solves" this problem by using the router's FIB as a macro-flow-cache. That's good except that a site with a large number of outgoing macro-flows (either because it's a busy site, responding to an external DoS attack, or actually originating a DoS attack from a compromised host) will cripple that site's ITR.
Scalability is one of the points traditionally left for the end, but that's hardly different from any protocol that was designed and then put into mainstream use. Second - you actually don't know that for sure - the mix of "from LISP" and "from normal IP" traffic would change in time, and the natural grow of the capabilities with the higher adoption would propably also affect ITR/ETR scalability numbers.
In addition, the current negative mapping cache scheme is far from ideal. I've written a couple of folks with a provably superior scheme (compared to existing work), and have received zero feedback. This is not good.
You mean LISP authors? -- "There's no sense in being precise when | Łukasz Bromirski you don't know what you're talking | jid:lbromirski@jabber.org about." John von Neumann | http://lukasz.bromirski.net