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

Behcet Sarikaya <> Tue, 01 May 2018 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670D412E037; Tue, 1 May 2018 10:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UxZllhKyi7Hm; Tue, 1 May 2018 10:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4443E12E03A; Tue, 1 May 2018 10:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n202-v6so13656511ita.1; Tue, 01 May 2018 10:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=layXb9S/JNS0tP4fa0ekm0CpD+3g1/jrIac6D949d34=; b=TJ8ZClp9LX36QuRe6lsTyZSNSozy8YGh/FU8VamtQ2d1a+Pr319ZhW2R74YfF0pkZ3 r8EjAV+TQ4J1UwmA0FdKfPcN48mRWD0PnjrVzzDNddskBQKN2y950Xt3c0gkfk3NZVPv pRiurHOME+/OTYOiaDehTT4SwOG7h6Rfr7s+P8D3ecXV0kdWvLERR7dOJ6VaYEKyIhIK y6CsyxacTQKJqm184sf154inLcBRIUztNTq30mwr8NzktOxo+SIUfV6OMjmFz05OgR7+ Z6Wyipt2AawVtiPurZI5slX+NfdkGuoYyeMWkFCjJBlDYyZC2oYvjQQ3HFsVI8qeWUXm imHw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=layXb9S/JNS0tP4fa0ekm0CpD+3g1/jrIac6D949d34=; b=tLC1Pr2pzeqaWyNF6QVS13E4N9fsu+FE2qunuFaur4X8v1SjR5Ax27Sll9xAd0laWV 9dlP5rsZqv6EWKanBAdkE+dveCd6T/H71qZNdpVaqv9ubcKaZy0AQTSPtwOti1vIS7YG O5XuspXrMXX3Xed5FSC7NNCy4mGNIIlCmbmGVkbp4Rl2odaKp+xsqPYcuAAZKMPIw4om vtf51usU4IbwyrLqtRICGG8dICdpnWocFvqCyqjchocsvuJf2m6NozybqH8WBKcjR+wG LmxnpQjko3VFiQJ6wmj1TuHBB8V8giVDT6GJJAs5w42MrM9F3bVnEcLtsCBQWzpbi214 OqjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBcASgwx1btZk9AVuIaFYXdYdU0ptcP+svvhBYhoTdct+p/Ec8d 6Wn/LsTRSKkpav3uYUu0hEBLUknkChvpwS469sA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpofv+ytV3gEh/4Qs1zD8MFMP/bE/wU5zGyMEfPj+T8zNHKtDM3VcKptSqOOZZ8bXR1eP/btjNxPCeV7APElIA=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:7b86:: with SMTP id q128-v6mr14011762itc.145.1525194965481; Tue, 01 May 2018 10:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 1 May 2018 10:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 12:16:05 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Cc: Tom Herbert <>, Tom Herbert <>,, 5GANGIP <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000217cc4056b2820fd"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ila] [5gangip] ILA forwaring [Was Re: Problem Statement]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Identifier Locator Addressing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 17:16:15 -0000

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Joel M. Halpern <>

If you do not use caches in your ILA-Ns (and yes, I understand your
> reasoning for not doing so), then you are constructing an overlay network.

You mean it is kind of tunneling? I think this is a problem with all Id-Loc
systems except ILNP, I think.

One of the arguments I was given for using ILA was to enable direct
> forwarding of packets effectively without needing to have routing track the
> moving entities.  Without caches, you are pushing all the traffic through
> fewer entities.  And you seem to be either using a lot of ILA-R with
> concomitant information distribution or few ILA-R restricting the
> information distribution problem but instead having traffic concentration
> problems.
> I understood from your earlier presentation that the ILA-r using the
> packet as a signal was to avoid dropping the first packet, and as a
> side-effect not needing a separate query message.

> Now you seem to be saying that your think it important to support not
> having caches in the ILA-Ns, which is a VERY different trade-off.
I kind of support this idea ( not having caches) looking from privacy point
of view. A cache learned for one UE may have privacy issues for another UE.
So using that cache entry freely may not be a good idea.


> Joel
> On 5/1/18 12:37 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Joel M. Halpern <>
>> wrote:
>>> Three reactions, all personal opinion (in case someone thinks my having
>>> helped chair the BoF is in any way relevant; it isn't):
>>> 1) If ILA-Ns do not have caches, the ILA-Rs will become hot-spots in the
>>> network.  Yes, you have provision for multiple of them sharing load.
>>> However, if that sharing gets to be a significant percentage of teh
>>> routers
>>> in the network, then there is no point in having bothered with ILA, you
>>> are
>>> just routing on the SIR.
>>> Joel,
>> If you provision a network (or any system really) based on an
>> assumption that caches will always attain some hit rate this is a
>> fundamental mistake. One of the goals of a DOS attack would be to
>> drive the hit rate to zero in which case someone will be in a world of
>> hurt. Caches and DOS are a hard mix to contend with in nearly any
>> context, that's why it's much better to view caches as an optimization
>> rather than a requirement. They can be used to alleviate load, but
>> that cannot be relied upon.
>> I would also point out that caches only make sense as internal devices
>> for intra domain communications. This does not make sense for edge
>> routers that would need to create a working set cache for any
>> aribtrary load of traffic from the Internet.
>> 2) As far as I can tell, when some ILA-N have caches, the ILA-R have no
>>> way
>>> of knowing whether the ILA-N have caches or not.  I can understand what
>>> happens if all ILA-N in a network have the same cache state (either they
>>> all
>>> have caches or they all do not have caches).  But I do not know what
>>> behavior you expect of an ILA-R if the ILA-N are not uniform. Given the
>>> hot-spot issue above, I think you need to really explain why ILA-N would
>>> not
>>> ahve caches.
>>> ILA-Rs and ILA-Ns communicate via ILAMP protocol. That can include
>> capabilities description.
>> 3 - Minor) Your usage of "sharding" seems odd.  You are simply dividing
>>> the
>>> domain into address blocks, and distributing responsibility for those
>>> blocks
>>> separately.  In other contexts, sharding seems to be used more generally
>>> for
>>> having subcollections of the data which can be moved around.
>>> Sharding is a database term that describes partitioning of the
>> database into smaller chunks for manageablibilty. That is what is
>> happening here (literally in the implementation since we are use a
>> database backend).
>> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list