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

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Fri, 19 March 2010 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
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 EA96F3A6837 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.901, BAYES_40=-0.185, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, 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 IlIsrcaitoIF for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [202.12.29.199]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110693A67DD for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp70.potaroo.net (dhcp70.potaroo.net [203.10.60.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B00DD58CA; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:15:10 +1000 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <4BA28691.4060208@arbor.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:15:09 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7FE5058B-2E46-462B-9ED0-4FE9B935DF45@apnic.net>
References: <C7C332E0.5EB5%tony.li@tony.li> <4BA28691.4060208@arbor.net>
To: Danny McPherson <danny@arbor.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
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: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:15:06 -0000

On 19/03/2010, at 7:01 AM, Danny McPherson wrote:
> Indeed, you're trading systemic state for implementation optimizations,
> in lots of places where issues such as this are amplified.  > 40%
> duplicates in a system today ma not be a problem, however, if prefix,
> origin, and path validation techniques are employed down the road in a
> secure routing protocol built on the current model, and every one of
> those updates have to be processed, I suspect at some point senders will
> be a bit more conservative in what they send.

No necessarily - the receivers can cache validation outcomes with reasoinbly
efficient results. See http://www.potaroo.net/papers/phd/pam-2007/bgpcache.pdf
for a study of this approach.

regards,

   Geoff