On 19 Feb 2014, at 00:45, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> Or if you want to solve only the cache-miss storm when ITR1 comes back >>> into the traffic stream then the ITR deflection has the advantage to >>> not require any cache-synchronization protocol, IMHO. The rate of >>> Map-Requests could be throttled to turn the storm into a breeze. The >>> method how to transport traffic to ITR2 could be one of many - a direct >>> LAN, GRE, Lisp. >> >> Or just make it a local matter and have ITR1 read its checkpoint file that >> it had written the last time before it crashed. These sort of problems could >> be solved better with implementation design and not protocol design. >> > > As a matter of fact, this is probably the simplest solution. However > that implies that routers are down for period of time shorter than the > lifetime of entries in the cache. Unfortunately, this solution only > prevents storms for the startup, not for the shutdown.
I am not following your logic. Dino > > Damien Saucez > >> Dino >> > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
