IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ila] LISP for ILA

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Tue, 06 March 2018 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ila@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ila@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5E41275F4; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 18:34:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 34VOkCWU1h_K; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 18:34:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl0-x22e.google.com (mail-pl0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 036FA127286; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 18:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id m22-v6so7496262pls.5; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 18:34:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=zBF0Va/CmDY/Qo2cqh7X/v2siM9eNq4x5LwkRfyp+A8=; b=hnCDzSC4BC3I6UFGNIHM4dC4dI/GUIGgiuvDkWdFn/78WvLaST6bo3k6YZYbHbMeCk BmSDzSVRrI0pPL8tzImhx9wrLKwD30lYb8UPD/n3xx68utCthjGAzTfLKLVmmobycS/i Sz5Rm6W0M2ui0jLeKLCMywBXJpVPcG3ZYqrkrQbpXRh2jzwPAORouRVVMQ8rtIGlPVr+ P+IBMd+2JkVDF7+WPRmlgQY81zQptDvUxbAk8CAX9+YbLWpIRFff3SKfX8j2ktV8O8B0 e489zbQMvqTu1bKcNQ6ofEyz71BC//tkIvzkjNTRRvLFBED7QLAY5alcKWlIjjB+egoN HV8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=zBF0Va/CmDY/Qo2cqh7X/v2siM9eNq4x5LwkRfyp+A8=; b=nvRoCbRqngpziVjtvMXkCVWfY7cIcGCgYbSOvo7l88scpt9/C2PfAgSrMklyKSKfLy gToqvxismlwe2Hsbu/Wz7ImM+EwN8Wn7waOJs4ji6SHH9f3/Hml6B4fniSzKRxNuTKfJ oQil8qKGYC+GpYGfjuhmIwd9B23luzZJx7oBDSCP2MeW1z/AbpFczKWPgd4+NCE7MQPN eE9yc6KhqHx0I6RTCYWnfLLppnFZ0mWWb5jZ3i6KsBEKstBGJiy00f8vJL/oIvghxbRc k+q8G90QRjLAqQ3RhE5NleOaLUr+yTmNJO84CCGHp97xEgktlGVWvoJbH1iSh5tKr2M8 aCqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAh3qWFzC9haSKiukheN5Ix/VIOXpoStqsPylsOrFdVmBFFo91F A8DvT9wAN/UGRqqX70sxstA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtqGTnP8JIUneQY5ZTM4oSM13NXPaywTmr7BXBihmRCbCfdQwbmZOGLvPQAn9OLc5VBXPKj5Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d891:: with SMTP id b17-v6mr14771649plz.241.1520303677501; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 18:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dino-macbook.wp.comcast.net (173-8-188-29-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.8.188.29]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v12sm31498023pfd.141.2018.03.05.18.34.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Mar 2018 18:34:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDqMeqVmEdFUhiyFpqViv1bj195XiADJctMSwBi1UyWwFA1NA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 18:33:48 -0800
Cc: "Alberto Rodriguez Natal (natal)" <natal@cisco.com>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, "ila@ietf.org" <ila@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, Albert Cabellos <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, "Vina Ermagan (vermagan)" <vermagan@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <49C22468-88DD-45CF-B8D8-5E938580F6EC@gmail.com>
References: <F1093230-C087-4168-9C5F-8DA7AB677677@cisco.com> <CAPDqMer58nxEixtH=JuZh9WgM0xKkEQYEjwZ6zg3wTjD76gOHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CE270206-3436-4753-8CF5-E6E928C38238@gmail.com> <CAPDqMeqVmEdFUhiyFpqViv1bj195XiADJctMSwBi1UyWwFA1NA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ila/QR_J6smxBokWbAg55Jsb-cu-7RU>
Subject: Re: [Ila] LISP for ILA
X-BeenThere: ila@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Identifier Locator Addressing <ila.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ila>, <mailto:ila-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ila/>
List-Post: <mailto:ila@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ila-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ila>, <mailto:ila-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 02:34:40 -0000

The cost per EID-record is 12 bytes plus size of the EID address and for an RLOC-record is 12 bytes plus size of the RLOC address. This assumes you use AFI=2. Not what the draft is proposing.

Dino

#  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+            
#  |                          Record  TTL                          |            
#  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+            
#  | Locator Count | EID mask-len  | ACT |A|I|     Reserved        |            
#  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+            
#  |SigCnt |   Map Version Number  |            EID-AFI            |            
#  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+            
#  |                          EID-prefix ...                       |            
#  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+          

#    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+          
#   /|    Priority   |    Weight     |  M Priority   |   M Weight    |          
#  L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+          
#  o |        Unused Flags     |L|p|R|           Loc-AFI             |          
#  c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+          
#   \|                             Locator                           |          
#    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+       

> On Mar 5, 2018, at 6:23 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Looking at the map-reply message format, I am concerned about its
>>> size. By my count, it's 40 bytes to provide one record with one
>>> locator where record and locator are 8 bytes. If we need to scale a
>>> system to billions of nodes this overhead could be an issue even if
>>> it's the control plane. Is there any plan to have a compressed version
>>> of this. For instance ,if there is only one RLOC returned wouldn't the
>>> priorities and weights be useless?
>> 
>> My comment about this spec is that you really don’t need a LCAF format to format the addresses. You can use AFI=2 and use IPv6 format. That will reduce the size.
>> 
>> But if you start compressing out fields, reality will set in and new features will be added and you’ll be back where we started. You want to multi-home, don’t you?
> 
> There are a bunch of reserved and unused flag bits in the message
> format. One could define flag-fields to make the messages extensible
> and variable length (without resorting to TLVs!).
> 
> Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email