Re: [RAM] Comment on draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt (LISP)

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov at juniper.net>]

Tony,

> On Apr 15, 2007, at 5:59 AM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> 
> >> If I can paraphrase you, Ross, doing packet forwarding at 10Mpps
> >> doesn't scare me.
> >
> > How many EID-to-RLOC mappings ICMP messages per second an ITR/ETR be
> > required to originate/receive ?
> 
> 
> Yakov,
> 
> I think that you're confusing the encap rate with the mapping rate.

Incorrect.
  
> Assuming that we eventually get the mapping mechanism correct (which  
> admittedly may require LISP version N for arbitrarily large N ;-),  
> then some low message rate, asymptotically approaching 0 pps should  
> be required.  

My question was in the context of LISP 1.5.

> The precedent here is the overhead required by a site's  
> local caching DNS server.

The analogy does not hold. This is because DNS does not provide any
information about whether a particular host is reachable or not.
In contrast, in LISP the ICMP messages do provide
reachability/unreachability information about RLOCs.

Yakov.

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