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

[Dino Farinacci <dino at cisco.com>]

> > From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at 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.

This is the reason why the data-triggered based Map-Reply in LISP  
takes a packet that does not have a mapping cached and copies the  
inner destination address to the outer header's destination address  
field.

And hence LISP 1.5 allows no drop of packets if an EID-prefix  
namespace is routed on another topology where you only route on IDs  
(where the Internet topology we know of today routes only on locator  
prefixes).

Dino


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