Hi
> No. Read on.
Thanks for the explanation. I was geting there after read the paper
again and again, but with your explanation it becomes clear.
> The issue for me is that the ARP who-has request reaches all nodes;
> and their response to any incoming edge packet is to register with
> the sender. So this triggers a flurry of activity.
> The problem remains that as the size of a community increases the
packets> required to add each new edge increases linearly.
that was my main concern.
> PROPOSED CHANGE
>
> The edge nodes can see inside the packets. One possible change would
> be to not initiate a registration when receiving a packet with the
> broadcast MAC address - only when directed to the edge's individual
> MAC address.
>
> If this change was made the behaviour would be:
>
> A sends who-has.
> All nodes receive who-has; B responds via S. B does not register
> with A, nor do any other edges register with A because
> dest_mac=FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF. A registers with B. B then registers with
> A because it received a packet to its individual MAC address.
>
> Under this model edges do not form a fully-connect mesh; rather only
> connected by the requirement to exchange packets between individual
> members. This would have several benefits:
> * Edges would have fewer registrations -> more efficient.
> * System more immune to DoS by L2 broadcasts.
> * Packet cost for adding a new node is O(1) instead of O(N) for
> community of size O(N).
>
> I cannot see a disadvantage yet.
agreed.
--
Christian Lyra
POP-PR - RNP
http://lyra.soueu.com.br
My doomsday machine will have a highly-advanced technological device
called a capacitor in case someone inconveniently pulls the plug at the
last second. (If I have access to REALLY advanced technology, I will
include a back-up device known as a battery.)
The Top Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became an Evil Overlord
_______________________________________________
Ntop-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-dev
