Re: [Ila] [5gangip] Scaling mapping systems (was Re: BOF Description)

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> Yes. OOO packets are possible during a transition period. In order delivery is not a requirement of IP and the window for OOO packets is relatively small anyway.

Right but frequent out-of-order delivery does not make the system as a whole work well. And the “transition period” is for *every new destination” that is not cached. So this can be a steady state situation.

> > trianglular routing. Redirects must be secure so that they cannot be spoofed, so for that reason (and some others) the protocol is over TCP. The mapping cache is only an optimization and packets are never dropped or queued for pending cache resolution. If the cache weren't present, communications would
> 
> But the ILA router in the network needs to have the mapping. And if it does not, what happens then?
> 
> The ILA router is considered authoritative for its shard. If it doesn't have a mapping then the packet is silently dropped as having an unreachable destination.

Does the ILA router for the shard only route to destinations inside of the shard? And if so, it is kept small so you can push the mappings and make it scale at that level?

> > still be viable but sub-optimal; that characteristic establishes a bound for the worst case DOS attack.
> >
> > Any thoughs on this approach?
> 
> You’ll really need to put signatures in the Redirect messages if you want robust authentication.
> 
> The redirects are sent over an established TCP connection to an ILA-N so that deters message spoofing. For stronger security, TCP authentication option or TLS can be used.

Is it worth the state to hold millions of TCP connections only the occasion redirect message?

Dino