Re: [Ila] [5gangip] ILA forwaring [Was Re: Problem Statement]

[Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think you've misunderstood my position. Caches are _very_ important
> to eliminate the cost triangular routing (latency, average path load).
> This reduces latency and reduces average load on ILA-Rs. But, and this
> is the critical part, caches are only an _optimization_ in ILA. That
> means if the cache is rendered ineffective (like by a well crafted DOS
> attack) then the only effect is that the optimization is loss (i.e.
> greater latency due to triangular router)-- this is quantitively the
> worst effect of the attack on an ILA cache. This can be contrasted
> that to LISP where the worst case effects of a DOS attack on the cache
> is loss of service for users (infinite latency since packets can be
> dropped or indefinitely blocked on a cache miss).
>

This can be misleading. This is not comparing LISP vs ILA, this is
comparing the models of Request/Reply at the edge vs Notifications (aka
Redirects) at the core. Both LISP-CP and ILAMP support these two models.

Besides, this is assuming an scenario where the only feasible DOS
mitigation is absorbing the attack. There are other scenarios where other
countermeasures are possible. For instance, if you have a deployment where
you can prevent address spoofing, counting and blocking misbehaving nodes
offers similar DOS protection and requires way less infrastructure
resources.

Alberto