On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >> Even if you imagine that the xTR control-plane is not a bottleneck, >> presuming that the data-plane can generate MS queries directly and can > > Why do you want to presume that?
To demonstrate that this is not simply a control-plane bottleneck. >> update its FIB at an unlimited rate, the result of having a limited >> FIB size plus an attack designed to take advantage of that means the >> MS infrastructure will be required to have very low latency and very >> high throughput to keep up with an xTR experiencing high PPS and low >> cache hit rate because of churn. This essentially would mean that the >> MS infrastructure is directly involved in a substantial fraction of >> packet forwarding decisions on that xTR. > > That doesn't follow at all and I don't know why you want to make this > conclusion. It is correct. If the xTR does not have the necessary state to forward a packet, it must communicate with the MS infrastructure. As cache hit rate goes down, direct MS involvement in forwarding operations goes up. The MS does not see the packet itself, but it must perform work for each miss. -- Jeff S Wheeler <[email protected]> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
