Subject: [v6ops] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:32:32 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would have thought that the BR and ER would be new targets
for DoS attack, however, I'm not sure those are really
different in this respect compared to other existing routers
in a data centre - did the wg consider if there are any such
differences that are worth noting? (I thought about it for 2
minutes, without finding any;-)

---

From: Tore Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:13:38 +0200

* "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc/

Hello Stephen,

The scalability characteristics of an BR/ER is indeed more similar to
that of a traditional IP router. This is due to them operating in a
completely stateless mode, handling one packet at a time, and
forgetting everything about it immediately after.

A stateless translator does not contain any flow tracking table, so the
number of concurrent flows (and the flow initiation rate) is
irrelevant. This is mentioned briefly in section 1.2.

I hope that answers your comment.

Tore