Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jakob Heitz <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Don't forget, BGPSEC sends one prefix per update.
> Current traffic is 2 to 3 prefixes per update.

There's actually some research on this, I recall the number 'globally'
as 1.2 avg packing... but internally, that may be different, of
course.

-chris

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of Eric Osterweil
>> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:46 AM
>> To: Christopher Morrow
>> Cc: Sriram, Kotikalapudi; sidr wg list
>> Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs
>>
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Eric Osterweil
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >> Hey Sriram, Russ, and Jakob,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the #s.  I think I get the general notion that adding
>> n updates per day per prefix equals (n * #prefixes)/1. :)  I guess
>> my question was kinda vague, sorry.  Upon reexamination, I see that
>> I said "overhead" without being specific.  Since we can use the
>> updates that are generated today to measure how much (for example)
>> bandwidth is already needed, can we calculate how much extra
>> bandwidth universal deployment would mean?  Also, perhaps this would
>> be most informative in the form of a ratio (i.e. a factor of $x$
>> increase).  That way, when people look at events like the one that
>> the "General Internet Instability" thread that just happened on
>> NANOG refer to, they can gauge the update amplification that was
>> seen against what _would_ be seen given bgpsec.  I think this
>> actually kind of came up on nanog, so it seems like maybe it would
>> be a relevant thing to look at here?
>> >
>> > is the 'bandwidth' of the bgp protocol in the wire an actual
>> concern?
>> > (at some point the discussion point came up ~1yr or more ago, but
>> was
>> > discarded as not relevant given circuit sizes and bandwidth from
>> link
>> > -> RP/RE/etc, so I'm genuinely curious about this)
>>
>> I think it is just a concrete way to relate the amount of data being
>> consumed today, to what may be needed tomorrow.  It isn't so much
>> that 1 byte = good and 10 bytes = bad.  More that in trying to
>> quantitative compare two behaviors, finding a common reference point
>> seems like a good start, imho.  I think a meaningful ratio is more
>> useful, but it just needs something to compare.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sidr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>