IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Sriram, Kotikalapudi" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov> Fri, 11 November 2011 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3710721F8AD9 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:07:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8aYdM-Kh962g for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:07:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wsget1.nist.gov (wsget1.nist.gov [129.6.13.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4120F21F8AD8 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:07:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.18.96) by wsget1.nist.gov (129.6.13.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:07:32 -0500
Received: from MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov ([fe80::41df:f63f:c718:e08]) by WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov ([129.6.18.96]) with mapi; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:07:41 -0500
From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:07:04 -0500
Thread-Topic: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs
Thread-Index: AcygkUU9SYvC7/xgSBiZpt6hjdZBRgAAXZY/
Message-ID: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49308E9E35562@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>
References: <CAL9jLaa+L-C7+Gp54BpM8FjAj+EFMabwQB9SsPW0N4QnFEfVGw@mail.gmail.com> <4297E946-980B-43C5-A01F-1F49706BC51E@tcb.net> <p06240808cad5c4d268eb@193.0.26.186> <0364A2AA-0CCF-408A-B5CB-42D7AFCAFB36@tcb.net> <p06240804cad81a9e4485@193.0.26.186> <54CED243-BDDD-45B9-AC5C-C6A97692FBF2@verisign.com> <CAL9jLaZ1GoN-iG4SWocVVhTKp5ppPOgHWcjh1J30GPnfwBPf+A@mail.gmail.com> <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49308E9E3555C@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov> <92AA1C8B-7CDB-406E-AA83-7C1BCD83CB69@ericsson.com> <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49308EAF8EF67@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov> <32DF728C-A96A-435D-A54E-7626C2577F04@verisign.com> <CAL9jLabdtEMJKy1eBi8JGxJDWQc2HngHWSHiuRRKc5v-=Ddk2g@mail.gmail.com> <C6A67919-B4AA-4664-A8DC-5503484B2BA8@verisign.com> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D21391A44964302@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CAL9jLaapE2fYHAGWvNLNVovUCk8KscfO=cqg=R2xRcMrJ_J=Hw@mail.gmail.com> <D1CCA860-6649-4B99-90AE-3EA19D44ADF3@tcb.net>, <CAL9jLaYcAfBDcBv_iZ-pFTDgkoM7rZUFJKZZ_41o5rgDvdf1pg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaYcAfBDcBv_iZ-pFTDgkoM7rZUFJKZZ_41o5rgDvdf1pg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:07:44 -0000

You may have missed noticing it...
I had provided the reference and the numbers in my eralier email --
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg03586.html

According to 
http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net/instability/bgpupd.html 
the current global BGP system produces
__ Average Prefixes per BGP Update:  2.24 __
Average BGP Update Messages per second:  1.13  
Average Prefix Updates per second:  2.53
>From this we can compute:
Average Prefix Updates per day =  218696

So yes, I did consider the _prefix _ updates as is the case in BGPSEC (not updates with packing in it).

Sriram

________________________________________
From: christopher.morrow@gmail.com [christopher.morrow@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow [morrowc.lists@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 11:45 AM
To: Danny McPherson
Cc: Jakob Heitz; Sriram, Kotikalapudi; sidr wg list
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> I'd be interested in a pointer to that Chris, if you could pass it along.

I had thought randy referenced the thing I am remembering, I'll ask
once I get to the meeting venue.
I think he's also pointed to some study work on the effect of
ingesting 1x prefix vs packed prefixes...

> The only quantitative analysis I've seen of this is here:
> <http://www.tcb.net/stuff/danny-ucla-pack.pdf>
> It's 3 months of data from 6 monitors.  The basic observation is that
> around 30% to 40% updates are packed, and these packed updates
> carry up to 80% of prefixes -- a density that seems to be fairly consistent
> across both iBGP and eBGP monitors.

neat.

> -danny

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email