Subject: Re: [Ila] [5gangip] Problem Statement

From: Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:37:09 -0700

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> Yes,you can differentiate them. ILA never drops of blocks packets
>> becasue of cache miss; LISP allows that at least in certain
>> configurations. So the worst DOS attack in ILA results in sub-optimal
>> routing, worst case in LISP is indefinitely blocking packets.
>
> What does an ILA router (one that maintains a cache) do when there there is a map-cache miss?
>
ILA routers (ILA-R) are not caches. They contain their shard of the
mapping system.

ILA forwarding nodes (ILA-N) may have a cache. In the case of a cache
miss the packet is forwarded. It will go to an ILA router that can
perform ILA transformation. The ILA router may also send back an ILA
redirect to the forwarding node to populate the cache so that it can
perform the transformation on subsequent packets. ILA forwarding nodes
never drop or block packets because of a cache miss.

Tom

> Dino

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:01:30 -0700

> perform ILA transformation. The ILA router may also send back an ILA

And how does the ILA router get the locator?

> redirect to the forwarding node to populate the cache so that it can

Yes, but it has to know what the destination locator is. You keep leaving this information out whenever I ask you

> never drop or block packets because of a cache miss.

But then they don’t have a locator to transform or redirect. 

Dino

---

From: Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:11:30 -0700

> Yes, but it has to know what the destination locator is. You keep leaving this information out whenever I ask you
We are currently using a distributed key value store for that (redis
DB). ILA-Rs read the monitor their shard. Code is in
github.com/quantonium/ila if you want to take a look. IMO, using a KV
store for this as opposed to developing a new protocol is a good
direction. This way were leveraging all the recent development for
security, availability, reliability, replication, etc.

ILAMP defines the protocol between ILA-Rs and ILA-Ns primarily for
managing ILA-N caches.

> But then they don’t have a locator to transform or redirect.
The router can send them a redirect if it chooses. On a cache miss the
packet is forwarded like normal.

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:26:14 -0700

> DB). ILA-Rs read the monitor their shard. Code is in

So does LISP.

> store for this as opposed to developing a new protocol is a good

I don’t want to look at code. I want you to explain clearly how a cache misser gets the RLOC. What if the identifier is not in its shard?

> ILAMP defines the protocol between ILA-Rs and ILA-Ns primarily for

I know that. You are not answering the key questions.

> packet is forwarded like normal.

You are missing the point. Forward to where? How?

Dino