IETF Logo Mail Archive

[RAM] How to avoid black-hole in LISP-CONS with aggregation mechanism?

Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com> Mon, 27 August 2007 08:56 UTC

Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPaOn-000371-5c; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:56:41 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPaOk-00036Y-Gm for ram@iab.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:56:38 -0400
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.54]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPaOi-0003dC-5b for ram@iab.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:56:38 -0400
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JNF00I1KCT1UU@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for ram@iab.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:55:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from x41208a ([10.111.12.94]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JNF0079DCSXXM@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for ram@iab.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:55:49 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:55:45 +0800
From: Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>
In-reply-to:
To: sbrim@cisco.com, rrg@psg.com, ram@iab.org
Message-id: <000b01c7e888$0e6fe940$5e0c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Acfoh0M85zztTCuTTCaI+X2LxI19HgAAJacQ
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
Cc:
Subject: [RAM] How to avoid black-hole in LISP-CONS with aggregation mechanism?
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org

Hi all,
I have a doubt about how to avoid black-hole in LISP-CONS with aggregation
mechanism? My doubt is explained as follows:

                          +---------+ 1.0.0.0/8  CDR-1
                          |  CDR-3  |
                          +----+---\+ 1.1.0.0/16 CDR-2
                         /          \\
                       //             \
                     //                \\
    Push 1.0.0.0/8  /                    \ Push 1.1.0.0/16
                   /                      \
                 /                         \\
               //                            \
             //                               \\
       +----/---+ 1.1.0.0/16 CAR-1           +--\-----+
       |CDR-1   | 1.2.0.0/16 CAR-2           |CDR-2   | 1.1.0.0/16 CAR-3
       +---+--\-+                            +---+----+
           |   \\                                |
           |     \\                              |
           |       \\ Push 1.2.0.0/16            |Push 1.1.0.0/16
   Push 1.1.0.0/16   \\                          |
           |           \\                        |
           |             \\                      |
           |               \\                    |
       +---+----+        +---\------+       +----+----+
       |CAR-1   |        |CAR-2     |       |CAR-3    |
       +--------+        +----------+       +---------+
      1.1.0.0/24         1.2.0.0/24         1.1.2.0/24
      1.1.1.0/24         1.2.1.0/24         1.1.3.0/24

As shown in the above figure, CAR-1 has two EID-prefixes, 1.1.0.0/24 and
1.1.1.0/24, and it sends an aggregated EID-prefix 1.1.0.0/16 to CDR-1. CAR-2
also sends an aggregated EID-prefix 1.2.0.0/16 to CDR-1. CDR-1 sends an
aggregated EID-prefix 1.0.0.0/8 to its parent CDR, CDR-3.
CAR-3 has two EID-prefixes, 1.1.2.0/24 and 1.1.3.0/24, and it sends an
aggregated EID-prefix 1.1.0.0/16 to CDR-2. CDR-2 sends a EID-prefix
1.1.0.0/16 to its parent CDR, CDR-3.
Now CDR-3 has two EID-prefixes, one is 1.0.0.0/8 with a nexthop of CDR-1,
the other is 1.1.0.0/16 with a nexthop of CDR-2. If CDR-3 receives a mapping
request for longest-matching entry for 1.1.1.1, it will result in a
black-hole. 

How to avoid it? Use the same aggregation granularity within the same level?
Or aggregation will not be available until all the component EID-prefixes
exists in the EID-prefix database of the aggregation attempter?

Best regards,
Steven XU



_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email