Subject: Re: (IPng) mechanisms for managing the flow ID field in IPv6

From: [email-masked] (Fred Baker)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 00:02:52 -0800

At 10:56 PM 11/30/94, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>    What's more, the flow space is bigger, so rather than using the, say, 100
>    or 200 most recent routes (ala Feldmeier's and Mogul's studies), we may
>    have to cache the most recent 200-500 flow IDs.
>
>Craig, is this a guess, or is there some study we can look at?  Feldmeier's
>TM-352, "Estimated Performance of a Gateway Routing Cache" is old (it was
>done in '88), but it contains some interesting data when studied closely.

You might look at Kim Claffey's papers last year - what she came up with
was somewhere in the ballpark of caching 200-500 LRU flows depending on
your timeouts and the service point (500-1000 in an NSFNET router like SDSC
or UIUC, 100-200 in a t-1 hub router, up to (say) 50 on a typical
workstation LAN. You can argue with the numbers if your favorite router has
different numbers, but she has some interesting sample points.

=============================================================================
        If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room!

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Partan)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 12:15:58 -0500 (EST)

> >done in '88), but it contains some interesting data when studied closely.

AlterNet's backbone routers typically have a few 1000 cache entries.
Some of my routers currently have 7,000 cache entries.
	[email-masked] (Andrew Partan)

---

From: [email-masked] (Bob Hinden)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:26:43 -0800

Folks,

Can we please have this discussion on only one list.  I think ipng,
end2end, flows, and int-serv is three too many.  I propose that it be
only on ipng.

Bob

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 13:01:43 -0500

>end2end, flows, and int-serv is three too many.  I propose that it be

I agree with Bob Hinden.  Also IPng is a real lot of work and a real lot
of specs and it requires full time attention by some of us.  For that
reason I have asked to be removed from e-2-e, flows, and int-serv as I
can't keep up with the research work too and do IPng as thats why my
company is paying for me to come to the IETF as an individual.  In other
words I have to do IPng very well.

Hence, I would like this to be discussed on IPng so I can participate as
an IPv6 implementor building this stuff.  For the research, design, and
future architecture needs of flows I understand the need for the other
lists.  But disccussions like flow-ID caches at the transport for IPv6
needs implementors of IPv6 in the discussion.  We are all here on IPng
list so lets keep it here.

p.s. Craig and Steve - I will give you my comments in person at the IETF.
Just maxed out with all our specs (overwhelmed is more accurate). From a
host perspective per IPv6 implementation of course.

thanks
/jim