IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Russ White <russw@riw.us> Fri, 09 September 2011 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <russw@riw.us>
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 B902521F8BA4 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11]
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 eTZiqNXfcxJB for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ecbiz91.inmotionhosting.com (ecbiz91.inmotionhosting.com [173.205.124.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FE821F8AED for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpe-065-190-157-197.nc.res.rr.com ([65.190.157.197] helo=[192.168.100.63]) by ecbiz91.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <russw@riw.us>) id 1R22kX-0000vC-9f for sidr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:12:13 -0400
Message-ID: <4E6A2CD0.1010305@riw.us>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:12:16 -0400
From: Russ White <russw@riw.us>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sidr@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <m2wrdhvjpe.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ecbiz91.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - riw.us
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: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:10:32 -0000

>     as a vendor friend says, if ipv6 deploys, insha allah, we're gonna
>     be upgrading those routers to do real v6 forwarding.  if it does not
>     deploy, you will be deploying massively bigger boxes to nat your ass
>     into hell.

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.

2. The cost of deploying BGPsec will be significant enough that it can't
be "buried," in any other costs.

The question is --which is true? I'm guessing #2 is going to be true,
but many others seem to think #1 is true. The reality is that the market
will decide, and no study is going to be able to answer this question fully.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email