Hi Remi, Tetsuya,
Thank you for your reply. Please see inline.
Thousands of rules seems to me a lot.
> (I keep doubts that, if CE's support statically shared addresses,
> keeping thousands of IPv4 prefixes would be needed to support IPv4 via
> IPv6.)
> In any case, this can be among factors that differentiate which solution
> applies best to which network.
>
> [Qiong]: Agree.
>
> Adapting a CE to up to 1000 rules doesn't seem difficult to me, and with
> O(log n) matching this can be done with satisfactory performance.
> (More details would be private consultancy ;-)).
>
[Tetsuya] Thousands of rules sounds a lot to me as well. But I don't
think it is difficult for CE to support such a number of rules. In fact,
our implementation was tested under 10k rules in our lab.
[Tetsuya] Also, the rule consists of Domain IPv6 prefix/length, Domain
IPv4 prefix/length, CE IPv6 prefix length and Domain IPv6 suffix/length. So,
the total data size of these tuples is 40bytes roughly. So, if using 1000
rules, the total data size is roughly 40kbytes. So, I don't think the big
chunk of memory is not required for storing all of rules in CE.
[Qiong]: I can fully understand that rule matching algorithm would not be
difficult to handle 1000 rules. But we should still keep in mind
that traditional CPEs are usually embedded systems with restricted
resources. The amount of NAT sessions it can handle is approximately about
2000~3000. When we add another 1000 rules to do prefix matching in CPE, I
think it would still cost more than before.
BTW, what's the output performance of your algorithm apart from memory
occupation and what's the configuration of your platform in your test ?
At the same time as other parameters (once in awhile to avoid lifetime
> expiry).
>
> [Qiong]: I think in this case, we would need another specification to
distribute this rules automatically.
Thanks
Best wishes
Qiong Sun
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
