you can push info multiply redundently (or cross-post:) and you get reliability with a silly overhead
or you can push an update which is wrong and disconnect the entire world, e.g. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/this-site-may-harm-your-computer-on.html so aside from the basic academic type scaling, has anyone done this sort of disaster-prone analysis for LISP/ALT? (i.e. human stupidity resilience, rather than security-to-prevent evil) one is reminded of simily errors with DNS root databases and with BGP adverts...one woudn't want to design a system with one-click take-down again In missive <[email protected]>, Christian Vogt typed: >> >>On Jan 28, 2009, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> >>> You cannot push around 10^10 entries and store them everywhere. [...] >> >> >> >>Dino - >> >>I think we should experimentally compare ALT with other mapping systems >>before we decide whether pull-based or push-based mapping systems are >>better. Dismissing push-based mapping systems without corroborating >>data would be a bit premature in my opinion. >> >>In the absence of experimentation results, I would actually argue in >>favor of push-based mapping systems based on some analytical reasoning: >>Pull-based mapping systems have two important disadvantages compared to >>push-based mapping systems: >> >>- Performance penalty, i.e., additional propagation latencies for some >> packets, and higher loss probabilities for packets that take a sub- >> optimal path >> >>- Robustness penalty due to a new online dependency on components off >> the actual transmission path. (FWIW: All pull-based mapping systems >> have this penalty. Mapping requests must be routed via overlay >> infrastructure because the direct route is unknown at that time.) >> >>Furthermore, I do not share your concerns regarding push-based mapping >>systems: BGP is pushing routing data already today, and this works >>fine. Any routing-scalability-related issues with BGP are not due to >>BGP being push-based; they are due to frequent updates and a high load >>for core routers. Both of these issues would go away in an address >>indirection architecture (be it LISP, Ivip, APT, or Six/One Router), >>independent of whether you use a pull- or push-based mapping system. >> >>In conclusion: The overlay approach of ALT is certainly an interesting >>idea. But I think it would be premature to conclude that it is the only >>viable solution before we have more evidence to back this claim. >> >>- Christian >> >> >>PS: I admit that I have never been really good in avoiding cross- >>posting. But this is obviously my all-time negative record... >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>routing-discussion mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion cheers jon _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
