Re: [RADIR] FWD: Re: Please review: draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-01.txt
Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com> Tue, 15 April 2008 18:46 UTC
Return-Path: <radir-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: radir-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-radir-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179333A6ABA; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: radir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF1E28C239 for <radir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PVpUerBtDlKz for <radir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E205F3A6ABA for <radir@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2008 11:45:58 -0700
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m3FIjwV5026328; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:45:58 -0700
Received: from vaf-lnx1.cisco.com (vaf-lnx1.cisco.com [171.71.118.48]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m3FIjwic011837; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:45:58 GMT
Received: by vaf-lnx1.cisco.com (Postfix, from userid 113818) id 30B265CC044; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:46:55 -0700
From: Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <20080415184655.GA28435@cisco.com>
References: <200802261833.m1QIXxHD029525@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200802261833.m1QIXxHD029525@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1497; t=1208285158; x=1209149158; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=vaf@cisco.com; z=From:=20Vince=20Fuller=20<vaf@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[RADIR]=20FWD=3A=20Re=3A=20Please=20rev iew=3A=0A=09draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-01.txt |Sender:=20; bh=1uAbLZb0n1wBx6rSCyDbOG3JBWG0QjUk/hX4XJ59a3w=; b=Xyj72MJgYYq56BhqXQiHDw/CRq6LxmVnsfjTKe9a68A9m+gfSdWZvO0ZWM TauxOmh8TkxVl0SBfLYGpA0XysUKeuqhUuOiTfAePYG3lJ+onOyvf3ThS4QM G2pAba9pRY;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=vaf@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Cc: radir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RADIR] FWD: Re: Please review: draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-01.txt
X-BeenThere: radir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Directorate <radir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir>, <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/radir>
List-Post: <mailto:radir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir>, <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: radir-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: radir-bounces@ietf.org
> I still believe this document needs an entire section > devoted to iBGP implications. I.e., the fact that if there's > indeed a problem the first place things are going to > break is going to be in the iBGP core of the most densely > connected networks. > > The reason it's going to break there first is because of the > richness of interconnection, both external (e.g., section 5.1) > and internal, and perhaps more importantly, as a result of > architectural constraints imposed by internal BGP routing > architectures that result in anywhere from 2 to 20x the > number of BGP paths in the internal BGP routers as opposed > to PE devices. > > There are network topology and routing architecture > considerations, as well as protocol modifications (e.g., > route reflection advertisement rule sets) that can have a > considerable impact on both churn and scale internally > as well. > > Ignoring this entirely in the document, when it's clearly > where the most pain exists today, isn't reasonable. My initial reaction to this is that iBGP topology considerations are an ISP-internal matter (that's the "i" in "iBGP"). Increased iBGP complexity, just like increased cost of adding security to the routing system (Danny's other pet peeve) is a consequence of ever- increasing global routing system state. Adding a prargaph to the end of the document that points out that conclusion seems like a reasonable way to address this and other concerns. --Vince _______________________________________________ RADIR mailing list RADIR@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir
- Re: [RADIR] FWD: Re: Please review: draft-narten-… Jason Schiller
- Re: [RADIR] FWD: Re: Please review: draft-narten-… Danny McPherson
- Re: [RADIR] FWD: Re: Please review: draft-narten-… Vince Fuller