Re: [lisp] Mapping system observations

Lori Jakab <ljakab@ac.upc.edu> Fri, 10 August 2012 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ljakab@ac.upc.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 891FA21F85CC for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 oKRXhva8hAFe for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.es [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A759121F857E for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.ac.upc.edu (gw.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.3]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7A1LiFv024109 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 03:21:44 +0200
Received: from [10.154.213.19] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by gw.ac.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1AE26B024A for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 03:21:43 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <50246225.20409@ac.upc.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:21:41 -0700
From: Lori Jakab <ljakab@ac.upc.edu>
Organization: UPC/BarcelonaTECH
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lisp@ietf.org
References: <0131C52A-B54C-4EEE-9C4A-D623FF00D7D2@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0131C52A-B54C-4EEE-9C4A-D623FF00D7D2@gmail.com>
OpenPGP: url=http://personals.ac.upc.edu/ljakab/lorand.jakab.pub.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:21:47 -0000

On 08/09/12 13:13, Damien Saucez wrote:
> After these measurements, we looked at the long term trends in
> the mapping system thanks to lispmon. The general trend is that
> the number of mapping increases (and more particularly the
> negative mappings) and that very few mappings use several
> RLOCs. Looking at this.

One of the reasons for more negative mappings may be some operational
changes that happened first on the ALT, and then the way DDT works. When
I started monitoring the beta network, all the 153.16.0.0/16 prefix was
considered EID space, and a Map-Request would either return a positive
reply, or nothing at all. Only queries outside 153.16/16 returned
forward-native. At one point that changed, and depending on active
registrations, negative Map-Replies were returned from within that
block. And with DDT, I think there is even more granular information
about prefix status.

-Lori