Re: [sidr] BGPSec scaling (was RE: beacons and bgpsec)

"George, Wesley" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Mon, 12 September 2011 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.com>
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 4CB4121F8B53 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.302, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368]
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 wuoWoEpBTZo4 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC39F21F8B49 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.13
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,514,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="272317177"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB04.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.13]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 12 Sep 2011 09:36:59 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS04.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.28]) by PRVPEXHUB04.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.13]) with mapi; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:39:26 -0400
From: "George, Wesley" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: Russ White <russw@riw.us>, "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:39:25 -0400
Thread-Topic: [sidr] BGPSec scaling (was RE: beacons and bgpsec)
Thread-Index: AcxvAuWNRBhIc+TSRzumUPWXj584LwCRqY/Q
Message-ID: <34E4F50CAFA10349A41E0756550084FB0E0D6B12@PRVPEXVS04.corp.twcable.com>
References: <A37CADA4-F16D-4C01-8D9C-D01001C4EFE4@tcb.net> <21C19DA8-7BF3-4832-8C13-C9A45FE026FB@algebras.org> <87D9E106-2A37-4E1E-8C69-7084C199A3FE@tcb.net> <331AEFBD-6AE5-469E-A11E-E672DC61DCDC@pobox.com> <B92913D1-AB82-4D9F-B8A9-F8F4F99713D6@tcb.net> <p06240803ca685bff5443@[128.89.89.43]> <D6D12861-412E-4A65-B626-B627449981B8@tcb.net> <34E4F50CAFA10349A41E0756550084FB0C2ED5A4@PRVPEXVS04.corp.twcable.com> <7B321CF0-ABE6-4FCD-B755-8099BB63399A@rob.sh> <5E9BE75F-C0A6-4B48-B15F-7E0B80EFE981@ericsson.com> <m2ipp4qxs5.wl%randy@psg.com> <34E4F50CAFA10349A41E0756550084FB0E0D5BDC@PRVPEXVS04.corp.twcable.com> <D4059E53-6EEC-4F66-9E1E-B96675182F22@rob.sh> <m2wrdhvjpe.wl%randy@psg.com> <4E6A2CD0.1010305@riw.us>
In-Reply-To: <4E6A2CD0.1010305@riw.us>
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"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [sidr] BGPSec scaling (was RE: beacons and bgpsec)
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: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:37:24 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: sidr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ White
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:12 AM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] BGPSec scaling (was RE: beacons and bgpsec)

>     as a vendor friend says, if ipv6 deploys, insha allah, we're gonna
>     be upgrading those routers to do real v6 forwarding.

There are two possible results, it seems to me:

1. The cost of deploying IPv6 will "bury" the cost of doing BGPsec, so
that BGPsec essentially becomes "free" in the IPv6 upgrade.

WEG] Two or three years ago I might have at least partially agreed with the above. Now, most large-scale ISPs have IPv6 deployed, using hardware that they have been assured (through testing and contracts) can forward IPv6 traffic at linerate. I believe that there are plenty of places where there is real traffic running such that the concept that somehow we're all cruising towards disaster if this IPv6 thing ever gets real is FUD at best anymore. There is also a big difference in my mind between forwarding hardware and routing hardware, so talking about v6 forwarding is conflating the two in an unhelpful way.
However, rather than an assumption that the two share a timeline, I think that this implies that IPv6 deployments may have the net effect of knocking some of the oldest crap out of the network, which makes more sense to me. Even then, all it'll do is bring things up to today's state of the art (+/- 2 years), so I think Randy's assumption about today's state of the art being the absolute best that you can assume when modeling for 3-5+ years from now is a good one.

Wes

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.