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

["Sriram, Kotikalapudi" <[e-mail]>]

>If the timing is wrong, it ends up being gating to deployment of BGPSec. 
>If the timing is right, it probably requires a lot of redesign work 
>and additional investment, neither of which are particularly optimal. 
>I'd prefer that we document up-front that there is a real concern here and that 
>IETF needs to get moving on the scale problem, 
>
>Wes George

The devil is always in the details. But I am thinking (hope not too simplistically)
that once you have a solution agreed upon and deployed for scaling the FIB, then
all it does is slow down (hopefully quite significantly) the growth of the
FIB and RIB sizes. It makes no changes to the eBGP protocol as such.
(Only adds the additional step of mapping look up at the ingress routers.)
It would appear that "BGPSEC protocol specification" by itself has no dependency 
on the FIB scalability solution (except that the potential impediments for 
BGPSEC deployment may be substantially alleviated -- benefiting from possibly
significant reductions in RIB size, # updates/beacons, and route-processor workload).
FIB scalability solution would ultimately reduce the cost of deployment
of BGPSEC, but the specifications of the two solutions/protocols need not be
intertwined. Having said that, I am all for full scale co-operation between the
two efforts -- much as you have suggested.  

Sriram