[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Tunnel fragmentation/reassembly for RRG map-and-encaps architectures
> of "magic" all the problems that motivated development of CEF would
> disappear in the context of ITR/ETR caches ? And if they would not
You don't do packet-time population of the cache like CEF did. In
LISP, you do packet-time Map-Requests, but the Replies populate the
cache at control-plane time. That is the difference, subtle but
But the subtle difference also is that before the reply for such request
is received you have two choices:
* drop packets /* not saying this is bad .. just static the facts when
comparing to today's FIB approach */
* forward it to practically non existent and managed by unknown entity
virtual GRE based LISP-ALT topology ...
I like APT proposal much more robust in that respect enforcing that all
ISPs have a default mapper and locally packets undergo just two stage
tunneling process if topologically required.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com 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