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

Eric Osterweil <eosterweil@verisign.com> Wed, 09 November 2011 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <eosterweil@verisign.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 0490011E80AD for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:37:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.476
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.104, 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 Cd2wwfPwuSwt for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og113.obsmtp.com (exprod6og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0286711E8080 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:37:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob113.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTrrkbg6ivRGOebjlHaEzVH85SXBIZnJg@postini.com; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:37:16 PST
Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id pA9Kb1Mk027860; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:37:02 -0500
Received: from dul1eosterwe-m1.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.131.30.124]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:37:01 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Eric Osterweil <eosterweil@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49308EAF8EF67@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:37:01 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <32DF728C-A96A-435D-A54E-7626C2577F04@verisign.com>
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>
To: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2011 20:37:01.0189 (UTC) FILETIME=[555D6B50:01CC9F1F]
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: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:37:17 -0000

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?

Anyway, I guess I was mostly just curious about what kinds of evaluations have been done, thanks. :)

Eric

On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote:

> Now the ops doc has much longer beaconing interval recommendations
> for what you may consider a normal prefix.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-01#section-7
> 
> 	Normal Prefix:  Most prefixes SHOULD announce with a signature
> 	validity of a week and beacon every three days.
> 
> Sriram
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakob Heitz [mailto:jakob.heitz@ericsson.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 12:09 PM
> To: Sriram, Kotikalapudi
> Cc: Christopher Morrow; Eric Osterweil; sidr wg list
> Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs
> 
> Proposal was 24 hour beacon timeout and 3 beacons per timeout. That makes 3 beacons per day.
> 
> --
> Jakob Heitz.
> 
>