Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05.txt

Danny McPherson <danny@arbor.net> Thu, 18 February 2010 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <danny@arbor.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 034303A7FC0 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:13:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 lARMu488NHNB for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:13:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateout01.mbox.net (gateout01.mbox.net [165.212.64.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A973A7EE3 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:13:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateout01.mbox.net (gateout01-lo [127.0.0.1]) by gateout01.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F73ECCE57; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:15:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from s1hub4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.120.254] by gateout01.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.61T) with ESMTPS id XID669oBRRPL7826Xo1; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:15:11 -0000
X-USANET-Source: 165.212.120.254 IN danny@arbor.net s1hub4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET
X-USANET-MsgId: XID669oBRRPL7826Xo1
Received: from [192.168.1.64] (97.118.239.19) by exchange.postoffice.net (10.120.220.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.234.1; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:14:40 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Danny McPherson <danny@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B7C94D5.6040102@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:15:08 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <F1D8E097-8AE4-4619-B74C-63C2F38F1903@arbor.net>
References: <201002180040.o1I0eAr0027055@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4B7C94D5.6040102@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M.Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05.txt
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:13:30 -0000

On Feb 17, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> Should we at least acknowledge in section 5 that our habit of addressing 
> any and all problems with BGP extensions puts pressure on the control 
> plane?  (It may be that this component is manageable, but I wonder.) 
> Each of these features have been put in for very good reasons, but RFC 
> 2547 VPNs, Flow-Routes for black-holing DDOS, and add-path routes to 
> allow use of multiple parallel routes, are all examples of features wew 
> have or are putting in the system that increase the pressure on the 
> Control Plane.

I've certainly echoed this sentiment many times now, so I agree 
Joel.  

I do have one clarification.  While they do introduce traditional control
and data plane overhead like any other BGP route, the DDoS countermeasures 
(i.e, BGP-based destination or uRPF/source-based blackhole routing) that 
are deployed today with BGP require no new "features" or attributes, they 
use only existing machinery - unlike flow spec and all the other stuff you 
mention above.

-danny