Subject: [lisp] Data Probes

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:01:17 -0500

[speaking personally:]
The current Lisp ALT draft, as with the last many versions, describes 
LISP data probes, and then says "use of Data Probes should be considered 
experimental and should be disabled by default in all ITR implementations."

I am wondering if we should simply remove the data probe from the ALT 
infrastructure entirely.  It is present as an option to experiment with 
ways to reduce first packet (between source ITR and dest EID prefix) 
latency.  It is subject to abuse, and shifts the design focus for the 
ALT, as it turns the pure control plane ALT into a data plane engine as 
well.  (Each query would likely be coupled to one or more data packets 
if this feature were used.)

Does anyone else have an opinion?

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:01:51 -0800

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:01:17PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> [speaking personally:]
> The current Lisp ALT draft, as with the last many versions,
> describes LISP data probes, and then says "use of Data Probes should
> be considered experimental and should be disabled by default in all
> ITR implementations."
> 
> I am wondering if we should simply remove the data probe from the
> ALT infrastructure entirely.  It is present as an option to
> experiment with ways to reduce first packet (between source ITR and
> dest EID prefix) latency.  It is subject to abuse, and shifts the
> design focus for the ALT, as it turns the pure control plane ALT
> into a data plane engine as well.  (Each query would likely be
> coupled to one or more data packets if this feature were used.)
> 

[speaking as one of the LISP+ALT authors but not for all of them]

IMHO, the intended RFC publication status of the LISP drafts is experimental
so I feel that is it quite appropriate to facilitate experiments with methods
of reducing first packet latency; enabling Data Probes is one such mechanism.

I'll also note that the generation and forwarding of Data Probes really
doesn't create a new form of abuse: a misbehaving system generating millions
of Map-Reqeusts will roughly the same negative impact on the ALT as one
generating millions of Data Probes. Furthermore, similar techniques for
mitigating control plane flooding attacks will apply to either sort of
ALT-routed datagram.

For these reasons, I am in favor of leaving intact the existing text regarding
Data Probes in the LISP drafts intended for publication as Experimental RFCs.
Should LISP eventually wind up on the standards track, then I wholeheartedly
agree that Data Probes will need to either be demonstrated viable through
experimental deployment or they will need to be removed entirely from the
LISP specifications.

	--Vince

---

From: Olivier Bonaventure <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:41:20 +0100

Joel,

> if this feature were used.)

I completely agree with you. Data probes have more drawbacks than
advantages. I don't think that the support of data probes should be a
design goal for a LISP mapping system.

Olivier

-- 
http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be , UCLouvain, Belgium

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:22:52 +0100

Hi,

> design goal for a LISP mapping system.

IMHO, the mapping system should be designed for low latency and with high security, not optimized for data probing forwarding. Hence I agree with Olivier.

Nevertheless, in the context of ALT, may be worth to do some experimentation with the data probing, just to shed light on wether they are really useful or not. IMO it fit with the "experimental" nature of the WG. So, for the specific case of ALT I agree with the reply of Vince (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg01925.html).

Luigi 

> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp