Subject: Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:29:44 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>

    > I don't think that we can allow ETRs to cache map "replies"
    > contained in the map requests they receive, unless they can verify
    > somehow that the map reply information in the packet contains the
    > valid ETR for the indicated EID prefix.

Well, the exact same analysis (and mechanisms) as for 'user-data traffic
gleaning' apply here; i.e. you ignore it if you already have a verified
binding; you mark it 'provisional' if you don't already have a binding,
and request a verified binding; etc.

(And apologies for treating a separate problem in the same thread - or do
security issues with both kinds of 'gleaning' fall under the same rubric?  If
not, maybe the tracker-wizards can open a new one?)

Really, I do feel that there are more important things to worry about, such as
the one I referred to in a prior post, i.e. 'does this mechanism really
provide no-binding-lookup delays at large-content-providers'?  (Yet another
tracker issue?) My concern relates to sites which are served by groups of
xTRs, and making sure bindings get distributed to the right one(s).  Although
perhaps there is a mechanism to deal with my concerns, and I just haven't read
the right document yet.

	Noel

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:48:01 -0400

> not, maybe the tracker-wizards can open a new one?)

If we can place some limits on "gleaned" mappings that resolve the  
issues we've raised, those same limits would probably apply to  
mappings that are "gleaned" at the other end by being passed in map  
replies.  So, I don't care if this is one issue or two, as long as we  
understand the limits needed in both places.

Margaret