Actually there is, predictive-rlocs. No messaging is better than .5 RTT in control-plane. But might not be fair to compare since you have to send data to more places that may get dropped.
Dino > On Apr 22, 2022, at 1:39 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nothing is better than .5 RTT. ;-) > > Dino > >> On Apr 22, 2022, at 1:18 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Dino, >> >>> If you use a transport layer that requires connection setup, it will slow >>> down handoff time when EIDs are moving. >> >> But quic connection setup is just 3 RTTs. Is that an issue ? >> >> Thx, >> R. >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:40 PM Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >> The others know to add quic, it was part of a discussion on how to open >> sockets using QUIC and which port numbers to use. That text is coming. The >> drfat does intend to support multiple transports. Here is one excerpt that >> proves that: >> >> <Screen Shot 2022-04-22 at 11.37.47 AM.png> >> >> QUIC will be added to the list above. >> >> To answer your second question. If you use a transport layer that requires >> connection setup, it will slow down handoff time when EIDs are moving. So in >> that case, a Map-Reqister should just be sent over UDP. And on the >> Map-Request side you will require an RTT before getting the map-cache >> populated. >> >> Dino >> >> >>> On Apr 22, 2022, at 11:11 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dino, >>> >>> Before I hit sent I did search the draft and did not find any match on QUIC >>> :( >>> >>> But to your question - yes. I see no reason why LISP control plane could >>> not be running over QUIC. >>> >>> Best, >>> R. >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 7:59 PM Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The draft indicates QUIC can be used as a reliable transport. But are you >>> saying QUIC should be used for all LISP messages? >>> >>> Dino >>> >>>> On Apr 22, 2022, at 6:35 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> May I ask for reasons not to use QUIC instead of home made UDP based >>>> transport followed by TCP ? >>>> >>>> Many thx, >>>> Robert >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 9:42 AM Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> During the last LISP WG meeting in Vienna/Meetecho the authors of the >>>> draft: >>>> >>>> LISP Map Server Reliable Transport >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kouvelas-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport/ >>>> >>>> Asked for adoption as WG document. >>>> Call for adoption during the meeting showed clear consensus. >>>> This email is the usual procedure to confirm the consensus on the mailing >>>> list. >>>> >>>> If anybody has concerns about adopting this document please state so on >>>> the mailing list before May 5th 2022. >>>> Please also argument the technical reason why you have concerns. >>>> >>>> Ciao >>>> >>>> Luigi & Joel >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> lisp mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> lisp mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>> >> > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
