Re: [RAM] Re: the separation of ID/RLOC

[Christian Vogt <christian.vogt at nomadiclab.com>]

>> Fast provider fail-over requires a very agile mapping function,
>> however. To me, it is not clear how either a pull or a push model,
>> or a trade-off between the two, can support this in a scalable
>> manner.
> 
> This is the key part of the mapping mechanism. I believe that at the
> first step some prototype systems based on DNS (pull model) and DHT
> (Push model)  or some hybrid model respectively must be deployed and
> test their performance,  then  decide which mechanism is a good one.

Michael,

you are certainly right.  The point I am making is that, from a delay
perspective, a pure pull model won't support efficient provider
fail-over.  A push model might; it depends on the actual mechanism.  But
still, for one edge network to update the mapping, it will have to push
the update to a large set of ingress tunnel routers.  This holds for
LISP, and for Ivip at a later transition stage.

OTOH, from a signaling overhead perspective, the pull model is more
favorable than the push model.  So there will be a trade-off, and this
does not seem easy to effect.

> The mobility support has some impact on which model will be adopted.

Right.  Edge network mobility and provider fail-over are the same in
terms of objectives and requirements IMO.

- Christian


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