Re: [lisp] Mapping system observations

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Thu, 09 August 2012 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F100221F86AD for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.292, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M3bt13kkShs5 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7532D21F8606 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 9515718C0F3; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:26:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20120809202635.9515718C0F3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:26:35 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: benoit.donnet@ulg.ac.be, jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [lisp] Mapping system observations
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:26:37 -0000

    > From: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com>

    > However, we observe a much more variable delay now with DDT than before
    > where delays were very stable with time.

Is this variation for a single MR<->{something} interaction, or is this the
overall time from i) an ITR needing a mappping to ii) it getting the mapping?
If the latter, it makes sense that there is more variation.

Previously, the Map-Request was sent over the ALT (via the ALT's root, in
almost all cases) to the ETR, and then the reply came back. Not a lot to vary
there (although the path from the root to the Map-Server would vary a bit).

Now, depending on how the delegation tree is configured (i.e. how many layers
from the root to the Map-Server for the mapping in question), how many of
those delegations are cached in the Map-Resolver the ITR is talking to, etc
you would expect to see a certain amount of variation.

	Noel