On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Looking at the map-reply message format, I am concerned about its
>> size. By my count, it's 40 bytes to provide one record with one
>> locator where record and locator are 8 bytes. If we need to scale a
>> system to billions of nodes this overhead could be an issue even if
>> it's the control plane. Is there any plan to have a compressed version
>> of this. For instance ,if there is only one RLOC returned wouldn't the
>> priorities and weights be useless?
>
> My comment about this spec is that you really don’t need a LCAF format to 
> format the addresses. You can use AFI=2 and use IPv6 format. That will reduce 
> the size.
>
> But if you start compressing out fields, reality will set in and new features 
> will be added and you’ll be back where we started. You want to multi-home, 
> don’t you?

There are a bunch of reserved and unused flag bits in the message
format. One could define flag-fields to make the messages extensible
and variable length (without resorting to TLVs!).

Tom

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Reply via email to