Scott, Many moons ago I posted http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-idloc-map-cons-01.txt
Feel free to adapt/adopt (xml is available if useful). It will be interesting to see what we've learned. Brian On 2008-03-19 09:41, Scott Brim wrote: > Hi Dimitri. > > On 3/15/08 3:35 PM, dimitri papadimitriou allegedly wrote: >> hi - a couple of comments/suggestions here below: >> >> "- Whether there will be any delay at all (might even get there >> faster)." >> >> -> differential delay would better translate this issue > > Good point. That's what we try to use when we talk about it anyway. > I'll change the section title. > >> -> also consider mapping entries change/variation for ongoing traffic >> flows and the side effect with corrupted entries > > To paraphrase: the possibility of additional delay/drop for packets in > established flows immediately after mapping entries change -- is that > right? > > Unintentional changes are covered under "Failure Modes". I'll add a > line under "churn" for intentional changes. > > (I don't think "delay" should be a major heading of its own, because > delay is a result, not an event, but I don't know how to organize things > yet so that the "delay" section goes away. When someone actually tries > to use this list, we'll know how to organize it better.) > >> "- Number of packets that might be delayed, dropped." >> >> -> add "effect on e.g. short elastic and long bulk flows" >> >> "- Effect on transport layer, session." >> >> -> for the transport layer (e.g. flow and congestion control) > > Done > >> in "Push, Poll, Hybrids" >> >> -> distinguish communication between MP and communication between TRs >> and MP > > Is MP a Mapping Point? Do you mean the source of mapping information > for the tunnel routers? Can you expand on this one a little? > >> -> in-band/user-driven trigger impact for mapping resolution (more than >> longest match-prefix lookup as performed today) >> >> add in "mapping points" >> >> -> distribution of the mapping points vs modes (push, pull, hybrid) >> >> -> impact of mapping point failure (for LISP 2 and 3 for inst. a there >> is no fate sharing this would result in serious impact) >> >> add issue of evolvability >> >> -> EID allocation and structure (noticing that a 1:1 mapping does not >> resolve any routing system scalability issue) >> >> -> mapping system scalability and complexity > > I can't find any of this in what I sent out. Could you send me what you > are quoting from? > >> editorials >> >> "Push, Poll, Hybrids" >> >> -> replace by "Push, Pull, Hybrids" > > Done. > > I'm attaching the updates I've done, and a diff. > > Scott > -- 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
