IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k DFZ prefixes are the tip of the iceberg

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Mon, 15 March 2010 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A436B3A6B95 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.316, BAYES_50=0.001, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Z=0.259]
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 2Xbc3gXgAXay for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E0C3A6A30 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.36]) by qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id tT1u1d0080mv7h051Waban; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:34:35 +0000
Received: from [171.70.244.111] ([171.70.244.111]) by omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id tWaB1d0032QvkQB3XWaGQo; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:34:33 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:34:08 -0800
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
To: Constantine Dovrolis <dovrolis@cc.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <C7C3CBB0.5FF2%tony.li@tony.li>
Thread-Topic: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k DFZ prefixes are the tip of the iceberg
Thread-Index: AcrEbhkZmR/5zpA3tEqhHGyVVSZBtQ==
In-Reply-To: <4B9E543D.3060802@cc.gatech.edu>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k DFZ prefixes are the tip of the iceberg
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:34:29 -0000

Hi Constantine,

> Toni, you are raising an interesting issue. However, if the sending routers
> do not check whether an update is duplicate, and if the receiving
> routers do not check whether an update is duplicate, don't we create
> a positive feedback loop?

Yes, but I think it was obvious that the receivers DO check.  If no one
checked, then any update would propagate throughout the net.  Yes, that
would be VERY, VERY bad. Lixia's paper pretty clearly stated that they were
only seeing duplicates go one hop.

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email