IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lisp] Mapping System scalability

Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <rodrigueznatal@gmail.com> Fri, 16 March 2018 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rodrigueznatal@gmail.com>
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 0D11E127978; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Q5wPQwTmPZaj; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22f.google.com (mail-it0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E2D6126E01; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id y20-v6so1083865itc.5; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GmoVS4QGmwr8rPm72zYdaingFossYMRp6HNakCzgDhg=; b=PCUH9bhkirtHLvh13SnAXWf7jNGixARPtdY6eQqX21zAJHEV6ztmrjOKKUT//cJTHd xZCH7+8fSA+9nagC3IrTlN1kthmOuTHwvOypDFNXyNbODj7l/GcaSIIb9+GHnf2tvbHI CjFxceDIIOpxjmqcCnECwH0XIUAluGs7RGWiXDtVP11sbSQec85cGFIczY2hDOk6EQXb ukVtgK5S56OQuS3MN5RTMwGNi6zouIRffNlw/iMU+jvOicZIO2+dlK+n4ac0lVGdygSL S5Cfa+Q40SZsVyp94JT6qFxDk7juDjTX9eD8qc0ye6avlnA3prPHc/IMIM5PsG1w+ow0 mglQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GmoVS4QGmwr8rPm72zYdaingFossYMRp6HNakCzgDhg=; b=LWw/qSKAzhf48wxaeFtaHIaoGTzJ5X3QBTkME9gHH91k9BVuFRa2SSuv1/HGjGY0YW FuoqrxYLK1j3/T8GSz0KmgW00WQsI1koUiX/WuA0GxxSaBGYwbpbc8JP9yL27i9Wd4kl jPvjpym/XAGxNFOC2FFb4oA3mhSjygOewoTvRGpeWKa2n7yBHDXGesTrRzudkOPBJ4aW elkVjPlPvofdtqyG9ROrRSXkBSIWcjjEAeBzb5HTEv9fj9004IIeKTmV9SOl4LGDn/SS va9G1UnP6lIbxlo6Ny6HuWZrsjLSjr/k2Cuh117ymLlkTnjBKW7sKfhbNlBo41+a2gj7 eQRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HEBgTphNGNTbj6HVXL11xXtHfNZtiY9Z/sBWDlDk3E/Y0feMCX fP/i4oUG6vEca8zN7b+MC5+CqIDyeFS94CyrjR2JAtfH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvBVlijXy3+6XCg9lU3FDo9Rbsb7B3Afp6JitlGMDDuBMMtWchPDOgbSZgmS3aG7fnk0mE9atv42wOOccWnBHw=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:441:: with SMTP id 62-v6mr1208728itb.57.1521188411119; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.29.72 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <rodrigueznatal@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:19:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+YHcKFj+T_DS4TQZZf+=ccYYbd_yGrQ5pcezovD_4keKMtMJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: dmm@ietf.org
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e1a1b2056783465b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/s3AgxaUbhEFSJch3YQiWQXYrWXo>
Subject: [lisp] Mapping System scalability
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 16 Mar 2018 08:20:14 -0000

Hi all,

In the DMM call this week, some people asked about the scalability of the
Mapping System. The LISP community has delivered different solutions to
address that challenge over the years. Here are some pointers to different
Mapping System implementations, I'm sure that the folks at the LISP WG list
can provide even more references.

LISP Delegated Database Tree (LISP DDT) [1] follows a DNS-like structure
and it's designed to be deployed at Internet scale. For an academic work on
a DNS-based Mapping System take a look at [2].

Designs leveraging DHTs have also been considered to enable high
scalabilty, see for instance [3][4]. For a survey on different Mapping
System options see [5] (I wasn't able to find an open version of this
article unfortunately).

For those interested in current research efforts, recent works include
decentralized designs [6] or even Blockchain-based approaches [7].

Hope this helps,
Alberto

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8111
[2] http://people.ac.upc.edu/ljakab/2010-jakab-jsac-lisp-tree.pdf
[3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-lisp-shdht-04
[4]
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.139.735&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[5] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6422285/
[6] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-00
[7]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/materials/slides-97-lisp-blockchain-based-mapping-system/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email