Robin and I have had a few rounds of text revisions. Since the
deadline is fast approaching, here is my latest version.
Lixia
-----------
Ivip Critique
Looking at 1000 feet level, Ivip shares the basic design approaches with
LISP and a number of other Map-n-Encap designs based on the core-edge
separation. However the details differ substantially. Ivip design takes
a bold assumption that, with technology advances, one could afford to
maintain a real time distributed global mapping database for all
networks and hosts. Ivip proposes that multiple parties collaborate to
build a mapping distribution system which pushes all mapping
information and updates to local, full database query servers located
in all ISPs within a few seconds. The system has no single point of
failure, and uses end-to end authentication.
"Real time, globally synchronized mapping database" is a critical
assumption in Ivip. Using that as a foundation, Ivip design avoids
several challenging design issues that LISP team has studied
extensively, which include
(1) special considerations of mobility support which adds additional
complexity to the overall system;
(2) prompt detection of ETR failures and notification to all relevant
ITRs, which turn out to be a rather difficult problem; and
(3) development of LISP-ALT lookup sub-system. Ivip assumes the
existence of local query servers with full database with the latest
mapping information changes.
However to be considered as a viable solution to Internet routing
scalability problem, Ivip faces two fundamental questions. First, it
is an entirely open question whether a global-scale system is able to
achieve real time synchronized operations as assumed by Ivip. Past
experiences suggest otherwise.
The second question concerns incremental rollout. Ivip represents an
ambitious approach, with real-time mapping and local full database
query servers - which many people regard as impossible. Developing
and implementing Ivip may
take fair amount of resources, yet there is an open question regarding
how to *quantify* the gains by first movers - both those who will
provide the Ivip infrastructure and those which will use it.
Significant global routing table reduction only happens when a large
enough number of parties have adopted Ivip. The same question arises
for most other proposals as well.
One belief is that Ivip's more ambitious mapping system makes a good
design tradeoff for the greater benefits for end-user networks and for
those which develop the infrastructure. Another belief is that this
ambitious design is not viable.
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
