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> Fri, 19 March 2010 23:52 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 986493A69F7 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.479, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 k-NU9Y7GtDZy for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7D93A6767 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.88]) by qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id vBMw1d0031uE5Es56Bsets; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:52:38 +0000
Received: from [171.70.244.111] ([171.70.244.111]) by omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id vBvz1d00D2QvkQB3cBwAsf; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:56:31 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:51:59 -0700
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <C7C95C2F.807A%tony.li@tony.li>
Thread-Topic: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k DFZ prefixes are the tip of the iceberg
Thread-Index: AcrHvynzHFawhmfdBkiqBfH7d+zYEw==
In-Reply-To: <00930C76-945B-4D7D-AFE2-000C5260BD47@apnic.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Danny McPherson <danny@arbor.net>
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 23:52:24 -0000

Hi Geoff,

> I'm not sure I understand this Tony. What is in my mind when I read this is
> a counter case when a BGP speaker sees from a peer:
> 
> advertise
> withdrawal
> advertise a dup of the previous advertisement
> withdrawal
> advertise a dup
> etc
> 
> i.e. in this case the dups are not irrelevant, and in this case caching of
> previous
> validation outcomes would be beneficial.


This is a different case than what I think we were discussing.  At least if
I understand the situation, Lixia and crew were seeing:

Withdrawl
Advertise
Advertise (dup)
Advertise (dup)
Advertise (dup)

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email