[rrg] [lisp] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP

[Jon Crowcroft]

you can push info multiply redundently
(or cross-post:)
and you get reliability with a silly overhead

or you can push an update which is wrong and disconnect the entire
world, e.g.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/this-site-may-harm-your-computer-on.html

so aside from the basic academic type scaling, has anyone done
this sort of disaster-prone analysis for LISP/ALT?

(i.e. human stupidity resilience, rather than security-to-prevent evil)

one is reminded of simily errors with DNS root databases and with 
BGP adverts...one woudn't want to design a system with
one-click take-down again

In missive <4829FA05-B2FF-4F39-8B4F-1810C472E447 at ericsson.com>, Christian Vogt 
typed:

 >>
 >>On Jan 28, 2009, Dino Farinacci wrote:
 >>
 >>> You cannot push around 10^10 entries and store them everywhere. [...]
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>Dino -
 >>
 >>I think we should experimentally compare ALT with other mapping systems
 >>before we decide whether pull-based or push-based mapping systems are
 >>better.  Dismissing push-based mapping systems without corroborating
 >>data would be a bit premature in my opinion.
 >>
 >>In the absence of experimentation results, I would actually argue in
 >>favor of push-based mapping systems based on some analytical reasoning:
 >>Pull-based mapping systems have two important disadvantages compared to
 >>push-based mapping systems:
 >>
 >>- Performance penalty, i.e., additional propagation latencies for some
 >>   packets, and higher loss probabilities for packets that take a sub-
 >>   optimal path
 >>
 >>- Robustness penalty due to a new online dependency on components off
 >>   the actual transmission path.  (FWIW: All pull-based mapping systems
 >>   have this penalty.  Mapping requests must be routed via overlay
 >>   infrastructure because the direct route is unknown at that time.)
 >>
 >>Furthermore, I do not share your concerns regarding push-based mapping
 >>systems:  BGP is pushing routing data already today, and this works
 >>fine.  Any routing-scalability-related issues with BGP are not due to
 >>BGP being push-based; they are due to frequent updates and a high load
 >>for core routers.  Both of these issues would go away in an address
 >>indirection architecture (be it LISP, Ivip, APT, or Six/One Router),
 >>independent of whether you use a pull- or push-based mapping system.
 >>
 >>In conclusion:  The overlay approach of ALT is certainly an interesting
 >>idea.  But I think it would be premature to conclude that it is the only
 >>viable solution before we have more evidence to back this claim.
 >>
 >>- Christian
 >>
 >>
 >>PS:  I admit that I have never been really good in avoiding cross-
 >>posting.  But this is obviously my all-time negative record...
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>_______________________________________________
 >>routing-discussion mailing list
 >>routing-discussion at ietf.org
 >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

 cheers

   jon