Dino, In addition to the previous arguments there are particular use-cases where the use of reliable transport simplified the deployment of LISP. As an example, the moment we started scaling datacenters to support 10s of thousands of hosts, the use of a reliable transport helped a lot the management of scale: On one side it reduces the amount of signaling when nothing changes, since we use TCP state as an indication that xTRs and the MS are in sync and there is no need to deal with the optimization of the refresh logic (periodic or paced). On the other side, with reliable transport we offload the reliable delivery of information (and congestion control) from LISP to another process (TCP) that is entirely devoted and designed for this. For example, supporting events like mass VM moves relying purely on LISP based ACks became very challenging, as we ended up having to deal with congestion events related to the signaling load generated. The use of the reliable transport largely simplified the problem.
Marc On 12/5/17, 12:06 PM, "lisp on behalf of Johnson Leong (joleong)" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Hi Dino, A large portion of this draft discusses the state machine required for TCP and how to ensure the MS and xTR are in sync. We literally reuse the entire UDP map-register code, we just wrap that message around the LISP TCP header so there's a lot of code reuse. Finally, this draft is not meant to replace UDP register but in some of our use cases TCP would scale better to avoid the periodic registration. -Johnson > On Dec 5, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> registration protocol, that might be orthogonal to other transport-related mechanisms. In my experience this has proved to be very effective in scalability of large LISP deployments, especially with the increased volume of registration data. > > I agree it’s a point solution for registration. Then why did you need to have a general format. > > I could support this draft if it was simplified to spec how to use Map-Registers in TCP and nothing more. > > The only thing I would add is how to use TLS so encryption is supported. More and more requirements are coming up for protecting the privacy of location information. And since Map-Registers carry RLOCs (and potential Geo-Coordnates) that information needs to be protected. > > Dino > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
