On the Dynamics of Locators in LISP

  • Damien Saucez
  • Benoit Donnet
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7289)


In the Internet, IP addresses play the dual role of identifying the hosts and locating them on the topology. This design choice limits the way a network can control its traffic and causes scalability issues. To overcome this limitation, the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) has been introduced. In LISP, the addresses used to identify end hosts (i.e., identifiers) are independent of the addresses used to locate them (i.e., locators). LISP maps identifiers into a list of locators and provides a mean to transport the packets with the appropriate locator. A key feature of this separation is that several locators can be associated to a given identifier, leading to more control for an end-site on the path selection to reach a given destination.

In this paper, we show that the choice of the locator can have an impact on the performance and the reliability of the communication in a LISP environment. To this aim, we build a mapping between identifiers and locators as if LISP were deployed today. In addition, we extensively collect delay data between locators and demonstrate that the locator selection for a given identifier prefix impacts the performance of the LISP path in 25% of the cases. Finally, we measure the locators availability over time and demonstrate that it remains quite stable.


Failure Detection Measurement Campaign Locator Selection Failure Recovery Internet Engineer Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Huston, G.: BGP routing table analysis reports (2004),
  2. 2.
    Meng, X., Xu, Z., Zhang, B., Huston, G., Lu, S., Zhang, L.: IPv4 address allocation and the BGP routing table evolution. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communcation Review 35(1), 71–80 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meyer, D., Zhang, L., Fall, K.: Report from the IAB workshop on routing and addressing. RFC 4984, Internet Engineering Task Force (September 2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Savola, P.: A survey of IPv6 site multihoming proposals. In: Proc. IEEE Internet Conference of Telecommunications (ConTel 2005) (June 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D.: Locator/ID separation protocol (LISP). Internet Draft (Work in Progress) draft-ietf-lisp-22, Internet Engineering Task Force (February 2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meyer, D.: The locator identifier separation protocol (LISP). Internet Protocol Journal 11(1), 23–36 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akella, A., A., S., Sitaraman, R.: A measurement-based analysis of multihoming. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM (August 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quoitin, B., Iannone, L., de Launois, C., Bonaventure, O.: Evaluating the benefits of the locator/identifier separation. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM MobiArch Workshop (August 2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Launois, C., Quoitin, B., Bonaventure, O.: Leveraging networking performance with IPv6 multihoming and multiple provider-dependent aggregatable prefixes. Computer Networks 50(8), 1145–1157 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhou, X., Jacobsson, M., Uijterwaal, H., Van Mieghem, P.: IPv6 delay and loss performance evolution. International Journal of Communication Systems 21(6) (June 2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    claffy, k., Hyun, Y., Keys, K., Fomenkov, M.: Internet mapping: from art to science. In: Proc. IEEE Cybersecurity Applications and Technologies Conference for Homeland Security (CATCH) (March 2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Saucez, D., Bonaventure, O.: Lisp-tree: a dns hierarchy to support the lisp mapping system. IEEE J. Sel. A. Commun. 28, 1332–1343 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Lewis, D.: LISP alternative topology (LISP+ALT). Internet Draft (Work in Progress) draft-ietf-lisp-alt-10, Internet Engineering Task Force (December 2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cai, X., Heidemann, J.: Understanding block-level address usage in the visible Internet. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM (August 2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    University of Oregon: Route views, University of Oregon Route Views project,
  16. 16.
    CAIDA: AS-Rank (2010),
  17. 17.
    Dimitropoulos, X., Hurley, P., Kind, A., Stoecklin, M.P.: On the 95-Percentile Billing Method. In: Moon, S.B., Teixeira, R., Uhlig, S. (eds.) PAM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5448, pp. 207–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Damien Saucez
    • 1
  • Benoit Donnet
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIASophia AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.Université de LiègeLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations