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

Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr> Wed, 19 February 2014 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <damien.saucez@inria.fr>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7E41A0450 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:40:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham
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 IdGMllSZsYcR for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C44C1A0080 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:40:55 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,504,1389740400"; d="scan'208";a="49611326"
Received: from faucon.inria.fr ([138.96.201.73]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 19 Feb 2014 09:40:51 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <5689A37C-B58A-4144-AB01-A61DFCE1B999@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:40:51 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A5E2D567-7C8D-4024-AE61-CFDA9400123A@inria.fr>
References: <20140218144825842648.087ffc67@sniff.de> <5689A37C-B58A-4144-AB01-A61DFCE1B999@gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/ZXPJVCBdow_o7HXdbfuVcisS9U8
Cc: Clarence Filsfils <cf@cisco.com>, Luigi Iannone <luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr>, LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Questions about draft-saucez-lisp-itr-graceful-03
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:40:57 -0000

On 19 Feb 2014, at 00:45, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> 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.

Damien Saucez

> Dino
>