> Such complexity is why I am still keen on the redirect model for a I hear you loud and clear. But we do the redirect model in LISP in many forms as well.
> mapping system. An ILA cache is an optional element and the control > plane is never inline with packet forwarding and packets are not > dropped on a cache miss. Neither does the generate request packets for We did that in the ITR as well. A cache missed meant to send a Map-Request and to encapsulate the packet to a PETR (proxy decapsulator) where the PETR usually had a full cache (how it got populated could be with pull or push mechanisms). But this results in duplicate packets going to the destination as well as out of order packets. > bogus addresses that can't resolved. These properties bound the worse > case DOS attack to be that legitimate traffic takes an unoptimized > route but is not blocked nor dropped. Conservatively, this does Yes, understand. But even in your constrained “domain”, there may be just too much state to push to all nodes. Especially in the 5G use-case. It wasn’t a problem in the LISP beta network because the proxy xTRs had relatively coarse prefixes that reached lots of EIDs. > require provisioning ILA-Rs to handle the full load if necessary to be > robust. Yes indeed. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
