Re: [Idr] [sidr] announcing virtual interim meeting Wed 29 Oct 2014

["Sriram, Kotikalapudi" <[e-mail]>]

During Sandy's tutorial presentation today, the topics of RIB size and 
CPU workload estimation for BGPSEC came up.
I was asked to post links to past IETF presentations where work on these topics was presented. 

"RIB Size Estimation for BGPSEC"

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/slides/sidr-2.pdf   (SIDR meeting, IETF-81) 

http://www.nist.gov/itl/antd/upload/BGPSEC_RIB_Estimation.pdf    (a few more details here)

(Note: The BGPSEC protocol I-D specifies ECDSA-P256 for signing updates. 
However, RSA-2048 is included and compared in this study because 
RSA-2048 was also considered for signing updates in the early phase of BGPSEC design.)   

"Estimating CPU Cost of BGPSEC on a Router"

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-sidr-7.pdf    (SIDR meeting, IETF-83)

http://ripe63.ripe.net/presentations/127-111102.ripe-crypto-cost.pdf    
(slightly different version presented at RIPE-63)

Some other topics also came up for discussion during the tutorial such as consideration 
for route servers (note: current BGPSEC supports transparent route servers by setting pCount=0), 
update packing (i.e. multiple NLRI in an update) - not supported in BGPSEC, etc. 
Design discussions related to these and many other topics (such as consideration 
of peer groups, max PDU size, AS_SETs, etc.) are provided in the following document:       

"BGPSEC Design Choices and Summary of Supporting Discussions"

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sriram-bgpsec-design-choices-06
 
(NOTE: This design choices document pertains only to the 
individual 00-draft [I-D.lepinski-bgpsec-protocol-00] dated March 2011. 
The BGPSEC protocol has obviously gone through many changes since then. 
So please be careful to bear this in mind while looking at I-D.sriram-bgpsec-design-choices.) 

Sriram