Re: [rrg] Let me see if I can summarize my concern with Locator Liveness

David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net> Tue, 23 December 2008 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <rrg-bounces@irtf.org>
X-Original-To: rrg-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rrg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE723A6A41; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:36:57 -0800 (PST)
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 04EE53A6A93 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:36:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 c2SDQHmbVJTO for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:36:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from m106.maoz.com (m106.maoz.com [205.167.76.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C2D3A6A0B for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:36:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id mBN0ae7X026367; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:36:40 -0800
Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id mBN0aew2026366; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:36:40 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:36:40 -0800
From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20081223003640.GA26215@1-4-5.net>
References: <20081222205152.GA19303@1-4-5.net> <49501214.2060901@gmail.com> <20081222230149.GA23002@1-4-5.net> <495021E4.60206@joelhalpern.com> <49502F13.1000604@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <49502F13.1000604@gmail.com>
X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc
X-gpg-fingerprint: 2409 8B50 B389 A307 BA5C 2A16 3918 03D6 A099 D8A7
X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go. John Lennon"
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Let me see if I can summarize my concern with Locator Liveness
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0021958279=="
Sender: rrg-bounces@irtf.org
Errors-To: rrg-bounces@irtf.org

> Dave is correct though that this assumes an engineering tradeoff;
> but surely we don't have to design for the worst case as if it
> was the typical case?

	I agree with that. The concern (at least to me) is that
	if you don't somehow assess whether a locator is
	reachable, these schemes have the potential to latch on a
	"down locator" (initially, or after a failure), and that
	can cause a persistent failure. That failure is a new
	failure mode for the Internet.  

	I'm also guessing that the procedure used to asses
	locator liveness can use hints to avoid the asymptotic
	bound (at least I would hope so). The "Possible
	Optimizations" section of the draft outlines a few of
	these. 

	I'll just note here that I'm not the only one concerned
	with this property of loc/id split; draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection
	is designed to address exactly this concern. 

	Dave
 
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg