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

[Eric Osterweil <[e-mail]>]

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