[Lwip] Neighbor Cache Management policy Experiment result

Rabi Narayan Sahoo <rabinarayans.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 20 February 2019 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <rabinarayans.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637EB13107A for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:19:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FREEMAIL_DOC_PDF=0.01] 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 5eWvQnPcFu4F for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:19:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com (mail-ed1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) (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 6294E128D0B for <lwip@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id j89so9066649edb.9 for <lwip@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:19:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=O1mVhNhoyt7bpDdO6enOD34jS4E6GEWplG7g8P5kIA4=; b=lT3tqawRJoBSA3rPUJnZYirMW1MgTE0p7W8lnLazPuI3JaJ2ICcXlsNfsn1ZYzdzn3 7KeteIEfB8Z1vphBrGng6otJURHlI4IYRa1rRiGbqu4PC+ATc6nK9OR5QNJx7qxlZiV3 U3udA7WnWukOVFUy4uiHU0NMRTlfoXcVu0t1oRiHiS4N8/S71+Vxn8u4DL2O7xTY6Ede PblQPQHQhtemSUTY7QmeVbnede4nDuEJ/2v7sLa8sA54kNxFinBU3oORZhNZFAp8lQXh rz+2fztooN2AYENU71KF3XludZmOTV9jVtYN3PH48kc/RZbVCbE5PcE32ywD72bbnVOg FtBw==
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; bh=O1mVhNhoyt7bpDdO6enOD34jS4E6GEWplG7g8P5kIA4=; b=Mrhwy1aUpOie9xZXgJe/9xwGQtLg47jYl2SJ3aIfh6JX8saTFAvYCn8lEMAVxoWSqi VBGfPbUyUrRYcfFlP7lpMRENXTWd5qJIH2Jcjv6ZoYDvSWRzfKMejphFlNpVRnqFYRgO pHzMXwRQ7kL6dqF1gbBEHsvYZQhudG5MKxXg194uze6E8bfJh3HyTueXERgjbCWLeqGu Wngspu0P5ErIwilwC4TfX/sn6a+4hpGnrR/h5foFJemIUBUOivzPRtc5XV8VSo2BELs0 iMZaBCZ16oYq0X2nRRXQe0J9AZyLTnLCOBdadTF8AtSgnL46J2XQ+iiBsyKuZHUgXzA8 h47A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYMUkz3tuwcVLJSL4nnD3GIqhWi+pwONhjTgsO+8aGWTnQgH0OI ovN3guTr23+Agl3K0moEsT5Ke8+2Zlp/Ms28+C2jLjt2naQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbjI0+S3CLCrLAja/B2C2ZoZ+k6qVd+rAASNBhYwuCBHdqHpbAsU9MSlHA9JcKVHvahVbfPKXJbcgj/NWjMChM=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:86d1:: with SMTP id 17mr16763008edu.191.1550625544626; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:19:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Rabi Narayan Sahoo <rabinarayans.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 06:49:10 +0530
Message-ID: <CAGrV7qeL2CswM8XuG8irMiyjsBXQ+vRj5yUNQQ1PHLz7rbV=Bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: lwip@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="000000000000c4908305824924db"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/xlKRbA8LpNu9iW41xfc97-R8vL4>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:09:25 -0800
Subject: [Lwip] Neighbor Cache Management policy Experiment result
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Lightweight IP stack. Official mailing list for IETF LWIG Working Group." <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lwip/>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 03:57:58 -0000

Hi All
We have done an experimental study of neighbor cache management policy
uisng whitefiled simulation framework.

We analyzed two primary points, impact on the PDR and the convergence time.
PDR was relatively easy to calculate but the convergence time, turned out,
is not so easy to identify. We defined convergence as the point at which
the BR becomes aware of all the routes to the nodes in the network.But its
difficult to estimate when the corresponding routes are stable enough so as
to declare the network is stable.

Without neighbor management policy, with lower neighbor table size, we
found the network never stabilizes. The reasons are highlighted in the
draft and we have relevant data.The PDR also extremely bad without neighbor
management policy, because the network never stabilizes and we keep getting
forwarding errors.

Please find the attached document which explains the configuration and the
test data.

Please let us know if there is any other data we can augment?

Cheers
Rabi