Hello Dino et al., > >> Yes, what you describe can work. But once you deflect, the other ITR >> still needs to send Map-Requests for all the new EIDs that are not >> cached in the map-cache. > > True. Two options I see > > (a) rate-limit the map-requests from the just-reloaded ITR. All this > does is some EIDs are a bit longer deflected
Already speced. > > (b) as Darrel explained it to me: if the MR/MS/mapping system cannot > handle this from a single site then it's probably too weak and not fit > for the job :-) > > > Regards, Marc Already speced. Dino > > > >> >> Dino >> >> On Feb 19, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Marc Binderberger <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello Dino et al., >>> >>>>> but then the "Traffic deflection to other ITRs (or a PxTR)" could be >>>>> used to fill the cache of the 2nd ITR (the one that is not reloaded). >>>> >>>> Then you get sub-optimal routing. >>>> >>>>> You turn it on on ITR2 (off on ITR1), change your IGP to send all LISP >>>>> data to remote sites to ITR2, "wait a bit", then ITR2 should be ready, >>>> >>>> This is easier said then done. That means you have to inject *all >>>> remote EID-prefixes* into your IGP. That is a non-starter. >>> >>> maybe I think too simple. Assuming you have two xTRs to connect your >>> site to the LISP cloud. They both originate a default route into your >>> site IGP. You then e.g. increase the metric of ITR1's default route or >>> remove the default originated into the site IGP. Routing out of the >>> site (to another EID) then moves to ITR2. >>> >>> Ingress is a different story, probably you need to reduce TTL for >>> registrations sent from ITR1, so you end up traffic ingress will use >>> ITR2 only (?). >>> >>> Then you are ready to reload ITR1. >>> >>> >>> Long story short: using the "Traffic deflection to other ITRs" plus the >>> right operational procedure may solve the problem? >>> >>> >>> Regards, Marc >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:41:19 -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>>>> Hello Damien, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for the reply! >>>>> >>>>>> If you have a solution to continuously synchronise ITRs caches, we >>>>>> would be very happy to look at them and integrate them in the proposed >>>>>> solution. >>>>> >>>>> And I was curious to see a light-weight protocol extension from you :-) >>>>> Seriously, was wondering if you see an elegant, light way to implement >>>>> this in the LISP protocol (?). >>>> >>>> Light-weight reads as non-robust and scalable. If you want those >>>> things, you have to do it right. And you then implemented BGP. >>>> >>>> One reason people like LISP is because it is reasonably easy to >>>> understand and employs *less protocol machinery* rather than more. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the purpose of the document is to deal with planned restart of routers >>>>>> meaning that we know exactly when the routeur will get down then up >>>>>> (it is controlled by the operator). >>>>> >>>>> but then the "Traffic deflection to other ITRs (or a PxTR)" could be >>>>> used to fill the cache of the 2nd ITR (the one that is not reloaded). >>>> >>>> Then you get sub-optimal routing. >>>> >>>>> You turn it on on ITR2 (off on ITR1), change your IGP to send all LISP >>>>> data to remote sites to ITR2, "wait a bit", then ITR2 should be ready, >>>> >>>> This is easier said then done. That means you have to inject *all >>>> remote EID-prefixes* into your IGP. That is a non-starter. >>>> >>>>> you turn off deflection on ITR2 and reload ITR1. Then turning on >>>>> deflection on ITR1 and bring the IGP routing back to active-active (or >>>>> whatever the setup was before). >>>> >>>> Dino >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Marc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:38:54 +0100, Damien Saucez wrote: >>>>>> Hello Marc, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 23:48, Marc Binderberger <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Damien/Olivier/Luigi/Clarence & LISP experts, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> had a look at draft-saucez-lisp-itr-graceful-03. And wonder if >>>>>>> there is >>>>>>> more to come? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for the interest. We are indeed thinking on ways to extend >>>>>> the document and provide more details on the ways the solutions could >>>>>> be implemented. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Somehow section 4 feels a bit "short". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I mean: if you try to solve the problem of the _two_ cache-miss >>>>>>> storms - first on the 2nd ITR (ITR2) when your restarting ITR (ITR1) >>>>>>> goes down, then on the restarting ITR1 when it picks up traffic >>>>>>> again - >>>>>>> then section 4 would probably need to talk about a permanent cache >>>>>>> synchronization (?). Unless you want to solve a planned restart only. >>>>>>> But for a failure of the ITR1 I don't see how the solution you >>>>>>> describe >>>>>>> would work >>>>>>> >>>>>>> o ITR cache synchronization: upon startup, the ITR synchronizes its >>>>>>> cache with the other ITRs in its synchronization set. The ITR is >>>>>>> marked as available only after the cache is synchronized. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as ITR2 would trigger the cache-miss storm for the traffic after ITR1 >>>>>>> failure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So my question in short: are you planning to add some words about a >>>>>>> permanent cache synchronization? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For now we don't have acceptable techniques to keep caches >>>>>> synchronised in a permanent way but I don't think it is a big issue as >>>>>> the purpose of the document is to deal with planned restart of routers >>>>>> meaning that we know exactly when the routeur will get down then up >>>>>> (it is controlled by the operator). >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have a solution to continuously synchronise ITRs caches, we >>>>>> would be very happy to look at them and integrate them in the proposed >>>>>> solution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> Damien Saucez >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>>>> Marc >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>>> >> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
