On 7 aug 2009, at 21:31, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I'm told by some people that UDP-Lite isn't a standard yet? Or is
it? (It
seems to have a protocol number issued?)
http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml
Protocol 136, RFC 3828.
Does UDP-Lite work through NAT
boxes? (LISP has a mobile-node mode, which we would like to see work
through
NAT boxes, so any proposed alternative solution has to work through
NAT boxes
too.)
For IPv6?
there isn't that much IPv6 traffic in the first place ...
So the lack of a fine-grained optimal solution to the load balancing
issue is not a problem in practice.
Is it your prediction for the near (i.e. 2-3 year) future that this
level of
traffic will continue to be the case, operationally?
The amount of traffic where lack of load balancing granularity beyond
the 3-tuple starts to hurt is in the order of a quarter of the link
speed (could be 25% of 100 Mbps to 40 Gbps). So if we can now fill in
the number of users that are encapsulated together between an ITR and
an ETR (could be hundreds to hundreds of thousands) and the amount of
traffic that is IPv6 (currently 0.2% at AMS-IX, perhaps 10% in the
near future or even 50% or more) then we can see how big the problem
really is.
It's not impossible to arrive at numbers where the load balancing
starts being problematic with only the 3-tuple but to get there within
a year or three (or even five) you have to assume radical IPv6 and
LISP uptake coupled with either massive ITRs/ETRs or miniscule links.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
