Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimination vs. Separation?
jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Tue, 26 January 2010 21:03 UTC
Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF833A69B6 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:03:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.974
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hOY1oFoq+wiA for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21423A699D for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 042AC6BE56A; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:03:53 -0500 (EST)
To: rrg@irtf.org
Message-Id: <20100126210354.042AC6BE56A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:03:53 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimination vs. Separation?
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:03:44 -0000
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> > The real disagreement was not about this estimate, but about whether we > need to solve the problem only for those 10 million PI EID prefixes, or > for a much larger number of SOHO+mobile EID prefixes. I think we probably need to have a solution that is _architecturally_ capable of supporting the larger number. (I'm speaking of a location/identity separation solution here, of course.) I.e. we may have to advance a ways down a multi-phase deployment path to get a system that can support that kind of scaling, but it has to be possible to have such a path. I've been thinking about this recently, as a result of an offline conversation, and I think it _is_ doable, in scaling terms (and I'm thinking about this in the context of mapping cache, of course). It's not the generic individual site which I am most concerned about (I think the size of cache will scale reasonably for them), but the Large Content Providers, which will be communicating with large parts of the network. If the cache for such an LCP is kept in some small number of boundary devices, I think the cache there probably would get too large. However, if the mapping function moves closer to the servers, the cache size will scale more reasonably. (A hand-wavy argument that the scaling will be feasible is provided by noting that at the limiting case, a single server, it can only support a limited number of TCP connections anyway, so it perforce will be talking to a limited share of the network.) In other words, we need solutions that are CES to start with (to make initial deployment feasible), but can morph into CEE _for some nodes_, to scale long-term. Yes, almost all of this probably would be unneccessary if we had a clean-slate architecture, one in which we didn't even have to do (identity->location) lookups. Still, we don't get to choose... Noel
- [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Eliminatio… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Patrick Frejborg
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Patrick Frejborg
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Brian E Carpenter
- [rrg] Ivip exemplifies Noel's support for "Advent… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Patrick Frejborg
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Scott Brim
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Scott Brim
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… heinerhummel
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Patrick Frejborg
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Scott Brim
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Patrick Frejborg
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Fred Baker
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Patrick Frejborg
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Patrick Frejborg
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Patrick Frejborg
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimin… Robin Whittle