> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 代表 Michael Meisel > 发送时间: 2008年3月7日 23:05 > 收件人: Xu Xiaohu > 抄送: Routing Research Group > 主题: Re: [RRG] Happiness; lack thereof > > Xu Xiaohu wrote: > >> I also did some worm-related troubleshooting and my intuition tells me > >> that something will surely explode in such an architecture. Just a > >> feeling, probably because you'll have to keep too much state per > >> packet or because end hosts will get another leverage over the routers > >> in terms of operations per packet... > > > > Reasonable, the default mapper will have to maintain a huge per-flow-based > > status statistics table. What's the estimated amount of statistics for each > > default-mapper? > > Hi Xiaohu, I don't believe the default mapper needs to understand > anything about flows. When it gets a packet from an ITR, it simply > examines the destination address and replies with a mapping, meanwhile > encapping and forwarding the packet to the destination. Once the ITR > receives the mapping, it doesn't make use of the default mapper again > until it has another cache miss. > > The default mapper keeps a small amount of state to ensure that it only > responds once (or maybe twice) to a burst of traffic for the same (ITR, > destination prefix) pair. > Hi Michael,
What you said is right. I should have said the ITR should maintain per-source-destination-pair statistics table as an attack-proof method. Best wishes, Xiaohu XU -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
