Re: [lisp] Questions about draft-saucez-lisp-itr-graceful-03

[Damien Saucez <[e-mail]>]

On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:39, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 19 Feb 2014, at 00:45, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Or if you want to solve only the cache-miss storm when ITR1 comes back 
>>>> into the traffic stream then the ITR deflection has the advantage to 
>>>> not require any cache-synchronization protocol, IMHO. The rate of 
>>>> Map-Requests could be throttled to turn the storm into a breeze. The 
>>>> method how to transport traffic to ITR2 could be one of many - a direct 
>>>> LAN, GRE, Lisp.
>>> 
>>> Or just make it a local matter and have ITR1 read its checkpoint file that it had written the last time before it crashed. These sort of problems could be solved better with implementation design and not protocol design.
>>> 
>> 
>> As a matter of fact, this is probably the simplest solution.  However
>> that implies that routers are down for period of time shorter than the
>> lifetime of entries in the cache.  Unfortunately, this solution only
>> prevents storms for the startup, not for the shutdown.
> 
> I am not following your logic.
> 

1.  if you store the cache for next reboot, you will not experience
the miss storm when the traffic will come back to you.

2.  if you shutdown an ITR, packets are forwarded to another ITR and
there is a miss storm as long as the prefixes in the backup ITR do not
cover those that where in the "down" ITR.


Damien Saucez

> Dino
> 
>> 
>> Damien Saucez
>> 
>>> Dino
>>> 
>> 
>