Re: [Pidloc] PIdLoc Webex

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

>> Understand. But randomized addresses assign to tail site can still be achieved without the high-cost of managing a CGNAT. You only need to route back to that randomized/ephemeral address for a short period of time. In fact, the ISP can withdraw the route when it wants the tail site to use another address.
> 
> That's where the scaling problem comes in. A mapping system should
> scale to support a billion mappings in a single network, maybe
> something like a 100M devices and ten mappings (identifiers) per
> device. That is manageable. For instance if entries are 50 bytes then
> the whole mapping database could fit in 50G of memory. But, if end
> hosts use a different source IPv6 address for each connection, then
> the number of mappings that would be needed increases by several order
> of magnitude. That is not so manageable. Assuming end hosts might want
> up to a thousand ephemeral addresses at a time, the memory requirement
> is now 50T and this puts a lot of pressure on the network when
> mappings need to be moved around. The alternative discussed in
> draft-herbert-ipv6-prefix-address-privacy-00 is "hidden aggregation"
> whereby the network is able to aggregate some number of addresses
> (identifiers) to the same mapping, but outside of the network no
> relation between addresses can be drawn.

You are bringing up a different issue now. And we have discussed this at length before. But as long as you have an underlay and plaintext headers, you still lose privacy even when EIDs are obfuscated.

If you put LISP xTRs inside of an ISP, then you have hidden aggregation of the RLOC addresses and any user addresses (EIDs) are obfuscated from payload encryption (i.e. lisp-crypto).

Dino