Michael Menth wrote to the LISP-mailinglist (without getting any onlist-response) a while ago: ___________ Dear colleagues,
I have some questions about LISP+ALT since some pieces of that architecture are not yet clear to me. Either I have overlooked that information in the drafts or they are not yet publicly available. 1) The question of control Who has the control over ALT? Who decides what the aggregation points are? 2) Who's paying for the map-request traffic? In LISP+ALT, map-requests are carried over the ALT. In contrast, data traffic is carried over paths provided by "traditional BGP" for which intermediate carriers are obliged by contracts to carry the traffic. What are the incentives for providers to forward map-requests if they have no relations to the source or destination of that traffic. This situation seems possible or even likely to me for aggregation nodes. a) Does the ALT topology follow contract relationships like the normal BGP which possibly makes aggregation difficult? b) Will there be extra contracts to carry map-request traffic on the ALT`? c) Or will that work with mutual agreements since the overall rate of the map-request traffic is hopefully small enough to be carried without financial backing? Or is there another option? 3) The structure of the ALT and data-probes What are the guideline for designing the paths in the ALT? Business and trust relationships dominate the paths in the normal BGP. Aggregation should be the objective in the ALT, right? Can't that lead to extremely long paths when EID-prefix-aggregators on different levels are located in different areas? This adds to delay which is especially unfortunate for data-probes which are currently not considered in ALT. What was actually the reason to renounce on data-probes in the current version of LISP? 4) Resilience LISP+ALT uses ETRs as authoritative sources of the mappings and map-requests are delivered to them over the ALT. Multihomed networks have several ETRs which improve their availability. Which mechanism makes sure that map-requests are deviated to another ETR if the primary ETR fails? 5) Security Are there plans yet to add security in LISP+ALT? Kind regards, Michael _____________________ Patte presented his ideas about some hierarchy in scalable_routing.doc. No one ever answered, neither on the LISP nor RRG mailinglist. All who support such solutions (LISP and the many variants) should comment on the reproach, that the distributed database (ALT) in mind would be extremely vulnerable (who owns these mapping servers, will own the internet; who can attack successfully them will tear down the entire internet). Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
