Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-01

[Ronald Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Brian, Deborah,

I realize that the authors are frustrated. Maybe we can run with Joel's proposal if we make the disclaimer complete.

Shouldn't the disclaimer read something like, "We do not know the impact of cache size and control overhead on {x, y, z}", where x, y and z might be:

- LISP scaling
- LISP security
- LISP resiliency
- other ???

Given that, might we draw some conclusions regarding LISP's applicability?

                            Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lisp [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 9:55 PM
> To: Brian Haberman; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)
> Cc: LISP mailing list list
> Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-01
> 
> Brian, Deborah, if we modified the section to say that we do not know what
> the impact on cache size and control overhead will be, as the studies that
> have been made have been disputed as to their relevance to the core
> Internet case, would the document still meet the IESG requirements for
> evaluating the impact.  I don't want to ask the authors if they can live with a
> certain change if that change will cause other necessary reviewers to
> complain.
> 
> I do not see it as sensible to hold up the publication of this and the other LISP
> work while researchers go off to see if they can calculate better results.
> Particularly not when publishing this document is required to do other work.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 3/29/15 9:50 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
> > I suppose that there are two options:
> >
> > 1. Admit that we have no clue what the cache size or control overhead
> > will be.
> >
> > 2. Repeat the cited studies, but with a pessimistic (worse case)
> > rather than optimistic (better than best case) assumption about cache
> > granularity.
> >
> > The second option would allow us to actually have some idea what would
> > happen if LISP were deployed on an Internet-wide scale, but would of
> > course take more time and more work.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > PS: I will be offline at meetings all of this week, so I might be a
> > bit slower to respond for the next few days.
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 9:36 PM To:
> > Ross Callon; Luigi Iannone; LISP mailing list list Cc:
> > [e-mail] Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call
> > draft-ietf-lisp-impact-01
> >
> > Putting aside the TBD (which of course needs to be fixed),  I have
> > trouble figuring out what you want us to say about the main issue in
> > your review.  On the one hand, this is the very issue that we have
> > been asked to comment on, and on the other hand you say that we don't
> > know. What do you think it is reasoanble to say?
> >
> > Yours, Joel
> >
> > On 3/29/15 9:03 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
> >> Generally I think that this document needs more work before it will
> >> be ready to submit for publication. Some comments on
> >> draft-ietf-lisp-impact-01:
> >>
> >> First of all, I assume that the TBD at the end of section 3 will be
> >> fixed. This reads:
> >>
> >> TBD: add a paragraph to explain the operational difference while
> >>
> >> dealing with a pull model instead of a push.
> >>
> >> Also in section 3, the third paragraph begins:
> >>
> >> In addition, Iannone and Bonaventure [IB07] show that the number of
> >>
> >> mapping entries that must be handled by an ITR of a campus network
> >>
> >> with 10,000 users is limited to few tens of thousands, and does not
> >>
> >> represent more than 3 to 4 Megabytes of memory.
> >>
> >> Reference [IB07] is of course:
> >>
> >> Iannone, L. and O. Bonaventure, "On the cost of caching locator/id
> >> mappings", In
> >>
> >> Proc. ACM CoNEXT 2007, December 2007.
> >>
> >> This paper states:
> >>
> >> In our analysis, we assume that the granularity of the
> >>
> >> EID-to-RLOC mapping is the prefix blocks assigned by
> >>
> >> RIRs. We call it /BGP granularity. In particular, we
> >>
> >> used the list of prefixes made available by the iPlane
> >>
> >> Project [15], containing around 240,000 entries. Using
> >>
> >> /BGP granularity means that each EID is first mapped
> >>
> >> on a /BGP prefix. The cache will thus contain /BGP
> >>
> >> to RLOC mappings.2 This is a natural choice, since
> >>
> >> routing locators are supposed to be border routers.
> >>
> >> The authors should be aware that there is some aggregation /
> >> summarization being done in the operation of BGP routing, and that
> >> the granularity of routes which appear in the default-free BGP
> >> routing tables is fundamentally different from the granularity of
> >> enterprise network / ISP boundaries across which traffic is
> >> exchanged.
> >>
> >> The same paragraph cites Kim et al.  [KIF11], which is Kim, J.,
> >> Iannone, L., and A. Feldmann, "Deep dive into the lisp cache and what
> >> isps should know about it", In Proc.  IFIP Networking 2011, May 2011.
> >> From this document:
> >>
> >> In addition, we use a local BGP prefixes
> >>
> >> database, fed with the list of BGP prefixes published by the iPlane
> >> Project [17].
> >>
> >> The database is used to group EID-to-RLOCs mappings with the
> >> granularity of
> >>
> >> existing BGP prefixes, because, as for today, there is no sufficient
> >> information
> >>
> >> to predict what will be the granularity of mappings in a LISP-enabled
> >> Internet.
> >>
> >> I agree that "there is not sufficient information to predict what
> >> will be the granularity of mappings in a LISP-enabled Internet".
> >> However, not knowing what the mapping granularity will be does not
> >> justify using an extremely optimistic guess, and then acting as if
> >> the results are meaningful. These assumptions are clearly off by some
> >> number of orders of magnitude, but how many orders of magnitude is
> >> unknown. We will note that the current internet default-free routing
> >> table includes a few hundred thousand entries (roughly twice the
> >> 240,000 entries that existed when this study was done).
> >>
> >> For example, we might assume that the intended global deployment
> >> model involves xTRs at the boundary between enterprise networks and
> >> service providers, and might note that there are several million
> >> companies in the USA alone (most of these are relatively small
> >> companies, of course). Thus there may be very roughly on the order of
> >> a hundred million or so companies worldwide. If each one had a
> >> separate entry in the mapping table, then the number of entries will
> >> be nearly 1,000 times larger than BGP-prefix granularity.
> >>
> >> Section 4 mentions as one possible use of LISP: "enable mobility of
> >> subscriber end points". If individual end points are advertised into
> >> LISP, then the granularity of the mapping table may be on the order
> >> of individual systems. In this case the number of mapping table
> >> entries that could exist globally might be on the same order of
> >> magnitude as the number of people in the world, or very roughly
> >> 7 Billion entries. This would suggest that the mapping table might be
> >> roughly 30,000 times finer grained than was assumed in the referenced
> >> studies.
> >>
> >> I don't see how we can accurately predict the control plane load of
> >> LISP without some sense for what the granularity of the mapping table
> >> will be. It should however be possible to bound the control plane
> >> load. The referenced studies give a lower bound on possible control
> >> plane load (it won't be any less), but give neither an accurate
> >> measurement nor an upper bound on the potential control plane load. I
> >> don't think that the document can claim to explain the impact of LISP
> >> without there being an attempt to measure an upper bound on the
> >> control plane load.
> >>
> >> Finally, perhaps I missed it but I didn't see any discussion of the
> >> volume of overhead related to OAM traffic used for liveness detection
> >> (the need for ITR's to determine the reachability of ETR's).
> >>
> >> Thanks, Ross
> >>
> >> *From:*lisp [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Luigi
> >> Iannone *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 10:22 AM *To:* LISP mailing
> >> list list *Cc:* [e-mail] *Subject:*
> >> [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-01
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> the authors of the LISP Impact document
> >> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-impact-01] requested the
> >> Work Group Last Call.
> >>
> >> This email starts a WG Last Call, to end March 30th, 2015.
> >>
> >> Because usually the pre-meeting period is already overloaded, the LC
> >> duration is set to three weeks.
> >>
> >> Please review this updated WG document and let the WG know if you
> >> agree that it is ready for handing to the AD.
> >>
> >> If you have objections, please state your reasons why, and explain
> >> what it would take to address your concerns.
> >>
> >> Any raised issue will be discussed during the WG meeting in Dallas.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> Luigi & Joel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing
> list
> >> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> >>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp