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

[Jakob Heitz <[e-mail]>]

By doing "converge first verify later", the router can be made cheaper.

However, there is still the cost of the RPKI and the cost of running/maintaining it.
My guess is that will bury the cost of the routers.
Just a guess, Randy.

--
Jakob Heitz.


On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:22 AM, "Russ White" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 9/9/2011 12:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>>    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?
>> 
>> as i have no data, any guess i make would be bullshit, would it not?
> 
> Does anyone have the data needed to answer which is true? My guess is
> based on the cost of hardware in general --even small hardware costs
> don't normally end up being "swamped"-- and the cost of network
> convergence times, etc.
> 
> Using different assumptions, you can come to different conclusions. I
> don't know how you can build a study that would tell you which set of
> assumptions is "correct."
> 
> OTOH, it would be interesting to try.
> 
> Russ
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr