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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dino Farinacci <[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).
>
> Note in LISP, most of the time, prefixes are put in the cache. For ILA its mostly /128 host routes. And note, when an LISP ITR gets a Map-Reply, it can elect to put coarser EID-prefixes in the cache versus more specifics. Or, not elect to put anything in the cache and forward to PETRs (the same as your ILA-R routers) at the expense of suboptimal paths.
>
> There are many options in LISP prevent DoS attack cache attacks. I don’t think that is true when caches are used in ILA.
>
That is correct. For ILA I would like to have a normative description
of how the protocol is intended to deal with DOS attack. IMO, when
someone asks what the DOS mitigation of a protocol is the answer
should be clear and concise.

Tom

> Dino
>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/1/18 12:37 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
>>>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>