Hi, On 19 Feb. 2014, at 18:29 , Darrel Lewis (darlewis) <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> 1. if you store the cache for next reboot, you will not experience >>> the miss storm when the traffic will come back to you. >>> >>> 2. if you shutdown an ITR, packets are forwarded to another ITR and >>> there is a miss storm as long as the prefixes in the backup ITR do not >>> cover those that where in the "down" ITR. >> >> LISP promotes multi-homing for inbound traffic to a LISP site, as well as >> outbound packets from a LISP site. You deploy LISP so you can get >> active-active multihoming. >> >> So this storm will typically be academic. As Damien pointed this is not just an academic exercise but something that may happen very easily. How bad are the consequences is just a matter of deployment/reliability requirements. For some people it may represent a big deal, for other it is not even an issue. > > +1 > > I've always thought that the mapping system will have to have capacity to > deal with broken clients, random LIG bots, and DoS attacks (just like, say, > DNS does). This leads me to believe that over-engineering the management of > sending map-requests on a given ITR will likely end up creating more > complexity, and therefor fragility, in the implementation. > I agree that we do not need (and hopefully will not) over-engineer, but may be we can find very simple solutions for people that want to use it. L. > > -Darrel _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
