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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Wed, 19 February 2014 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
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 816D01A057F for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:33:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 lBjD3ML_p1Qf for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:33:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x229.google.com (mail-pd0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA33D1A00B2 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:33:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id v10so656930pde.0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:33:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FrNBJoFpEURvni3vtfvXLjCYU/yIUXqb0S2dQZuyETo=; b=NO5f+q2g6jkVWdsqy3KihnPNIuFeG1tztAdak+a4Khd4Qq+dQYzlwkPerr9vae3Djx qaRmlJNfmMavijrANwmVk1kFzi3kodGRnRqSsKovIXyzbl7h6k2b+jGYIUy6MHkgxOAE +GhyfP9cIdkTDVGIqublwadUjhQkn+7MJtoJ1CVodQ8atvVLOjDXVpUmkuNVFowcITPr RXYr8jUyKz4xnvnstVRknjND9BKPeWHpY5pSTnf2oEzSsHCjCAMUtQfHKU/tDtqxQ1IE 8dcX8n3h6SUtkUNsoi+HWB1zdLw4pf3H6dDOg45vK4Ra4Bj3zhJdbNzDK292E+xzYs4h Q66w==
X-Received: by 10.66.129.133 with SMTP id nw5mr3637804pab.98.1392831182679; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.169.113.83] (71-6-80-11.static-ip.telepacific.net. [71.6.80.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c7sm2574280pbt.0.2014.02.19.09.33.01 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3482805F-EC6F-4AAE-B0DB-49B619020A3C@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:32:58 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EB7B93D4-E1CF-402C-98E5-67D8A720018F@gmail.com>
References: <20140218144825842648.087ffc67@sniff.de> <5689A37C-B58A-4144-AB01-A61DFCE1B999@gmail.com> <A5E2D567-7C8D-4024-AE61-CFDA9400123A@inria.fr> <A948F13B-023B-43FB-92EC-D4DA6A832404@gmail.com> <D232D17D-49D4-484C-96AB-5C5D48291AF9@inria.fr> <561A89E6-B2AB-4EF3-8FFC-B87BEBF680E2@gmail.com> <3482805F-EC6F-4AAE-B0DB-49B619020A3C@inria.fr>
To: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/oW_j7XqPBOzpFbKBhW_bmJ023Q4
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 17:33:08 -0000

> Well it is not just theoretical, it can happen as soon as you have two
> egress points, even in active/active mode.
> 
> Imagine you have two identical egress points in your network (let say
> that they can both reach the whole Internet) depending on the IGP the
> traffic from a part of the network will go to one and the traffic from
> the other part of the network will go to the second router.
> Unfortunately the set of destination is not the same in both part of
> the network so when you fallback to one router after the outage of the
> other one, you will have misses.
> 
> We have evaluated that on our network (that is primary/backup) and
> simulated it as active/active and noticed that the storm would not
> negligible.

Yes, understand Damien. One has to decide how much machinery one puts in a protocol for events that don't happen often.

Dino