IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-mn-10

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Thu, 12 August 2021 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
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 048AC3A4384 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 WoSi42eCHPsj for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) (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 123F53A4382 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id a5so8162150plh.5 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
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=k4bAc2MhfozTIThcVGfMtrSd32tvx1AHsfr7vuB3AVo=; b=nwqieoYClOtJ1VLE8TGkH9+l5reRf5+dxPPHFzwYFwJMd/laQ499X/F2/3thUiYGdj eCkNqx/JYEFALJB1lY3dP4jhg0rar4u6pJhzN5CWrTZP2kq8Se+zoserK9+zj/SIFtPk ult9pIyOdTzqblN33unPhSwEjvRySp3gvYOu3Qi19rHyuuHDCHO/ycxGAfJWdfnsyDqO VaxzXQKTi9JLj1vLIX24W6QP5MHzPIrO4ABCR2uMSd/2dXyFuH2vJ/Q6IvtH5urdXaEC 5R2etGzygENtd3mQKrjYQHWhEFVtcrXXW8bY6LyU+ssM99C18JdvScdfdWDbgfwEbGQd jcQg==
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=k4bAc2MhfozTIThcVGfMtrSd32tvx1AHsfr7vuB3AVo=; b=ZGa/ml1KiW4+FZp3f0PqNU0EcYh1lXbAn3yaOvU2SY9/OPf68CPOGgGXtaKz32Pss5 +I37I/lMKO4Dy2WrJ4soPeaaj+/qHTQhL8+uG5epEDd7a+lx+9mnum/BLhJUHBPrZEDt vC58WCJZ3H1KbZFYAFUnotrxnwf/Cql0FIb9oGaQkL0c2V/xuMPaVoCyuj7lfPzOZhO+ 3k0NlPmTvpbrklv27R5BC8Qjeg9XLhGc3DP7txlmiIB5yHgVvTiH9/qkIlIaCCBKtZET nvlhkZvb1gCoWf+Pp11bBEt2SvpL/VYjlT4mpZstFiVCtlR1rdsyxYYviieoz8nAkpc+ 7e4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531stCBUP4OibP7poNPwc+hHWCZR4nUGmVtuMu04rg4YphoTAeJs QaqQFesgxJS5hIIOoguKkpY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+sMinaEzwaeg0y3Fmb6/qcxgiUkxhha/Uukjyj4THdjGMCcfZ1OMLhtX7ZdWwbGCe2lHylw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b60a:b029:12c:f89b:fad3 with SMTP id b10-20020a170902b60ab029012cf89bfad3mr4415194pls.13.1628788841694; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([98.42.171.73]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l11sm4269113pfd.187.2021.08.12.10.20.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1e30dd88b7a74a92aa21b0225fd414ec@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:20:40 -0700
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <604E5254-20BD-4651-BC7E-711B0397B0EE@gmail.com>
References: <1e30dd88b7a74a92aa21b0225fd414ec@huawei.com>
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/1KOA49wYvD9zatk-LTD_UrgXkMY>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-mn-10
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 12 Aug 2021 17:20:48 -0000

> One additional comment:
> 4. I have seen assumptions that Map server and proxy to Non-LISP are on the same box. It is a potential bottleneck in the future.

That is a deployment decision and not an architectural requirement.

> DHCP would deliver only 1 Map Server IP to RLOC. Hence all overlays would share the same Map Server.

Not true. The map-server(s) are configured in ETRs. They can be distinct addresses or anycast addresses.

> Proxy is a router with a low capacity CPU. It could become a bottleneck if LISP implementation would become big enough.

The PxTR needs to be built (by equipment vendors) like any other type of router and the capacity depends where it is deployed and the speed of links and aggregation of traffic comes to it. Clustering solutions make PxTRs scale.

> It is better to assume initially the general case that Map Server and Proxy are different boxes (not collocated).

Yes, it is assumed by default and co-locating it is a deployment decision.

Dino

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email