> > Provided the LISP-CONS/ALT is just looked as a transitional solution to the > > routing scalability issue, the non-upgraded host will suffer the initial > > packet loss/delay pain, on the contrary, once the host is upgraded to > > support EID-RLOC mapping query on behalf of the ITR, the end user will jump > > out of the pain. > > Understand the assertion, but do you have any data to > back it up? If so, that would be interesting. Otherwise, > both conclusions are conjecture.
yes, we need data to see the impact of initial packet loss/delay firstly. Then... > > Besides, it will benefit the ISPs eventually since they do > > not need to afford the high-cost ITRs which should support full database ( > > e.g. LISP-NERD), or which should support cache and this mechanism will > > become a target of DDoS attack. > > Again, why should ITRs be "high-cost", and for that > matter, what constitutes "high-cost"? A lot of ITRs in LISP-NERD need to maintain full EID-RLOC mapping database, the size of which is hundred times or even more large than that of the current routing table. Doesn't that mean higher cost? Best regards, Xiaohu XU -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
