Subject: Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimination vs. Separation?

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:34:17 -0500 (EST)

> From: Patrick Frejborg <[email-masked]>

I should first point out that my original response was in response to, and in
the context of, your comment:

    >>> I believe that the Trojan Horse is called MPTCP

and my observations were specifically questions about MPTCP (and let me
repeat by reference my previous comments about how MPTCP is great for its
core designed functionality, and so I hope it is a success, but it does not
solve all problems).

    > I think an enterprise should have PI-addresses always, PA-addresses is
    > for residential users.

OK, I'll bite. I couldn't quickly find data on the number of companies in the
world, but there are something like 2.5 million companies with 5 or more
employees in the US. Since the EU has more people than the US, and China and
India each have more people than that (although are less economically
developed), there are probably something like 10 million non-trivial companies
worldwide.  Are you really propose dumping 10 million PI entries into the DFZ?

    > [is] a CES solution is only aimed for multi-homed solutions only?

Depends on the particular CES solution, I would think.

    > the problem is, when is a site becoming a LCP site, it is event driven,
    > isn't it? Anytime there is something happening that passes the news
    > threshold some servers are starting to get hits, depending upon the
    > nature of the news.

Sure, and sometimes a site melts down because it doesn't have enough server
capacity, or enough bandwidth, or whatever. Sites not coping well with massive
increases in traffic volumes is, I would imagine, not uncommon, and it
manifests itself in a number of ways - some of which are not easily
ameliorated (e.g. going from a single-server system to a server cluster).

    > the returning traffic doesn't need be looked up by a mapping solution,
    > it is populated by the initiating traffic

The simplistic versions of this tactic can lead to DoS attacks and/or traffic
hijacking. If you want to avoid a lookup in the return direction, you have to
authenticate 'unsolicited' bindings.

	Noel

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:48:22 +0100

On Jan 26, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> Are you really propose dumping 10 million PI entries into the DFZ?

Yes; anyone who proposes general PI addressing is talking about that.

---

From: Patrick Frejborg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:09:13 +0200

Hi Noel,

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   > From: Patrick Frejborg <[email-masked]>
>
>    >>> I believe that the Trojan Horse is called MPTCP
>

Very true, MPTCP alone doesn't solve all problems - we need a bunch of
tools to solve this issue, including LISP (or similar)

>
>    > I think an enterprise should have PI-addresses always, PA-addresses is
>    > for residential users.
>

Ah, nope - not into the DFZ, never.
In the future core-edge split architecture the enterprise can have
PI-addresses but in the current architecture the usage of PI addresses
should be minimized. If the future core-edge split architecture
encourages the usage of PI addresses, that would be a carrot for the
enterprises to migrate, wouldn't it?

>
>    > [is] a CES solution is only aimed for multi-homed solutions only?
>
>    > the problem is, when is a site becoming a LCP site, it is event driven,
>    > isn't it? Anytime there is something happening that passes the news
>    > threshold some servers are starting to get hits, depending upon the
>    > nature of the news.
>

True, but if we are aware of this issue in the design phase we should
find a way around it, at least try - otherwise we are not doing a
proper job.

-- patte

>
>    > the returning traffic doesn't need be looked up by a mapping solution,
>    > it is populated by the initiating traffic
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:32:10 +1300

> Yes; anyone who proposes general PI addressing is talking about that.

Firstly, I'd like to support the ten million estimate. Based on the
projected world population of just under ten billion by 2050, that
amounts to one enterprise per thousand humans, and that seems to be
roughly what you find in the available data for developed economies
(ignoring dummy companies and sole practioners). So if you believe
that SOHO customers, including mobile phones, do not need PI prefixes,
10 million PI prefixes is about right.

We had this discussion two years ago, iirc. The real disagreement was
not about this estimate, but about whether we need to solve the problem
only for those 10 million PI EID prefixes, or for a much larger number
of SOHO+mobile EID prefixes.

    Brian