IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Thu, 10 November 2011 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.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 4824A21F84A7 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:41:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 LPJON2vejGOR for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEBC21F8483 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iaeo4 with SMTP id o4so4218109iae.31 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:41:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UxmaiiXNEY/nloKH2pBWD8yD3P1UL6kHqjuMm4od+Tw=; b=Vi5G+rOk2t/ond6RCi3xTCDtX4FYGeDgv0t/0rjqWJX3LFJ46Q2T7gIbPTHB3X+i24 V1F516An3Mcol6pBhxr4jBz8cYiViyeERYQ6jZWMdr/MtZ+pHXZE0+UXliRIgCI+M6hq Nn5xH6BZ8Xf1CeZUV2/EA7Q/g4LdWrUOBxr5o=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.36.161 with SMTP id r1mr9313235igj.37.1320950494387; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.202.142 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:41:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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> <32DF728C-A96A-435D-A54E-7626C2577F04@verisign.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:41:34 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: QKChqxFQlq2xOjlm7bCzrNgApCE
Message-ID: <CAL9jLabdtEMJKy1eBi8JGxJDWQc2HngHWSHiuRRKc5v-=Ddk2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Eric Osterweil <eosterweil@verisign.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, 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: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:41:35 -0000

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Eric Osterweil <eosterweil@verisign.com> 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)

>
> 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.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email