On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Peter Schoenmaker <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems there is interest in this topic. But to move forward we need > volunteer(s) to act as the editor. > > Do we have more specifics about the protocols to be studied, and what the > paper would contain?
Hi Peter, Apologies for my delinquency on this. First, based on the feedback I've heard, I suggest keeping the discussion about operational experience with pull-cache mapping systems on GROW. GROW's traffic is pretty light right now. RRG has gotten active as of late and I suspect there are a number of folks on GROW who are interested in this subject but don't want to wade through all the RRG messages. Folks on RRG who want to subscribe to GROW to follow and participate in this discussion can do so at: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow . I will cut the RRG list from future messages on this topic. For the document, I was thinking along the lines of: 1. Introduction: We're looking to learn the difference between successful and unsuccessful pull-cache mapping systems so that as we consider using pull-cache for Internet routing we can avoid proposals with the characteristics of an unsuccessful pull-cache map. 2. Interesting pull-cache systems seen in operations (brief summaries) 2a. At least two successful pull-cache systems. DNS and CPU ram cache perhaps? 2b. At least four superseded (unsuccessful) pull-cache systems. Cisco fast switching (cache single IP address destinations in a hash table). What else? 3. Metrics for each system 3a. Estimated upper bound of entries in the system (DNS has billions of entries. A CPU cache can handle millions of ram pages). 3b. Estimated upper bound of active entries in typical cache. (a few hundred thousand names at once in a DNS cache. Around hundred thousand pages in a CPU ram cache). 3c. Typical entries served per second (a few thousand with DNS. A couple billion with the CPU cache) 3d. Typical delays on a cache miss (a couple hundred ns with the CPU cache. 50 to 2000 ms with the DNS) 3e. Replacement algorithm 3f. Etc. 4. Commonalities 4a. Characteristics common to both successful and unsuccessful pull-cache systems 4b. Characteristics observed primarily in unsuccessful pull-cache systems 4c. Characteristics observed primarily in successful pull-cache systems 5. Conclusions: what to look for and what to avoid in proposed pull-cache systems for routing. Thoughts? Any suggestions for what interesting but failed pull-cache information systems we can glean insight from? Regards, Bill Herrin p.s. Dimitri, did you receive my 12/2 response to your 11/29 email? Wondering if we have a rogue spam filter somewhere between us. -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
