IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [RAM] The mapping problem: rendezvous points?

<louise.burness@bt.com> Mon, 10 September 2007 07:44 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 1IUdwJ-0003ms-QD; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:44:11 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUdwH-0003aD-WC for ram@iab.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:44:10 -0400
Received: from smtp3.smtp.bt.com ([217.32.164.138]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUdwG-0004CJ-IF for ram@iab.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:44:09 -0400
Received: from E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.108]) by smtp3.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:44:07 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [RAM] The mapping problem: rendezvous points?
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:44:17 +0100
Message-ID: <DB3E5D6F36600847BC70D451534EBCD5010B16F1@E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070910021621.E482D87322@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [RAM] The mapping problem: rendezvous points?
Thread-Index: AcfzVOsbD1ps74OuRi6fMQDJkwV9aQAKTgQg
From: louise.burness@bt.com
To: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu, ram@iab.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2007 07:44:07.0161 (UTC) FILETIME=[5DFC8E90:01C7F37E]
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Cc:
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

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu] 
Sent: 10 September 2007 03:16
To: ram@iab.org
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [RAM] The mapping problem: rendezvous points?

    > From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

    > If nothing much is happening and caches are empty, and a host then
    > starts a session towards some remote destination, in a pull model,
the
    > encapsulating device must first look up a mapping so it can
perform the
    > required encapsulation. So the first packet must be dropped.

Well, is that latter really necessary? I know it's more complex to hold
onto the packet until the mapping comes back, but if dropping that first
packet causes problems, we could write that code without changing
anything else in the system; i.e. it's an optimization we can add later,
invisibly to the rest of the system, if it turns out we need it.


[alb] If the pull takes a while, someone could send lots of packets to
dud destinations, and if you hold all those packets waiting to find the
mapping you have DoS potential?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email