Subject: [RAM] How to avoid black-hole in LISP-CONS with aggregation mechanism?

From: Xu Xiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:55:45 +0800

Hi all,
I have a doubt about how to avoid black-hole in LISP-CONS with aggregation
mechanism? My doubt is explained as follows:

                          +---------+ 1.0.0.0/8  CDR-1
                          |  CDR-3  |
                          +----+---\+ 1.1.0.0/16 CDR-2
                         /          \\
                       //             \
                     //                \\
    Push 1.0.0.0/8  /                    \ Push 1.1.0.0/16
                   /                      \
                 /                         \\
               //                            \
             //                               \\
       +----/---+ 1.1.0.0/16 CAR-1           +--\-----+
       |CDR-1   | 1.2.0.0/16 CAR-2           |CDR-2   | 1.1.0.0/16 CAR-3
       +---+--\-+                            +---+----+
           |   \\                                |
           |     \\                              |
           |       \\ Push 1.2.0.0/16            |Push 1.1.0.0/16
   Push 1.1.0.0/16   \\                          |
           |           \\                        |
           |             \\                      |
           |               \\                    |
       +---+----+        +---\------+       +----+----+
       |CAR-1   |        |CAR-2     |       |CAR-3    |
       +--------+        +----------+       +---------+
      1.1.0.0/24         1.2.0.0/24         1.1.2.0/24
      1.1.1.0/24         1.2.1.0/24         1.1.3.0/24

As shown in the above figure, CAR-1 has two EID-prefixes, 1.1.0.0/24 and
1.1.1.0/24, and it sends an aggregated EID-prefix 1.1.0.0/16 to CDR-1. CAR-2
also sends an aggregated EID-prefix 1.2.0.0/16 to CDR-1. CDR-1 sends an
aggregated EID-prefix 1.0.0.0/8 to its parent CDR, CDR-3.
CAR-3 has two EID-prefixes, 1.1.2.0/24 and 1.1.3.0/24, and it sends an
aggregated EID-prefix 1.1.0.0/16 to CDR-2. CDR-2 sends a EID-prefix
1.1.0.0/16 to its parent CDR, CDR-3.
Now CDR-3 has two EID-prefixes, one is 1.0.0.0/8 with a nexthop of CDR-1,
the other is 1.1.0.0/16 with a nexthop of CDR-2. If CDR-3 receives a mapping
request for longest-matching entry for 1.1.1.1, it will result in a
black-hole. 

How to avoid it? Use the same aggregation granularity within the same level?
Or aggregation will not be available until all the component EID-prefixes
exists in the EID-prefix database of the aggregation attempter?

Best regards,
Steven XU

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram