At 11:17 AM -0500 11/10/11, Eric Osterweil wrote:
On Nov 9, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:
At 1:27 AM -0500 11/8/11, Brian Dickson wrote:
...
I do not support adoption of this document in its current form.
The main reasons have to do with fundamental aspects which at a high
lev
Hi, Sriram,
Could you supply similar kinds of numbers, but with "peak" instead of
"average", esp. 50%ile, 75%ile, and 95%-ile levels for "peak"?
Average is much less important than peak, in my experience.
Steady-state is easy.
Also, in noisy/spiky data, mean != median typically. BGP is noisy/sp
Don't forget, BGPSEC sends one prefix per update.
Current traffic is 2 to 3 prefixes per update.
> -Original Message-
> From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Eric Osterweil
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:46 AM
> To: Christopher Morrow
> Cc: Srira
On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Eric Osterweil
> 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 ques
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Eric Osterweil 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 s
On Nov 9, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:
> At 1:27 AM -0500 11/8/11, Brian Dickson wrote:
>> ...
>
>> I do not support adoption of this document in its current form.
>>
>> The main reasons have to do with fundamental aspects which at a high
>> level have been addressed by my colleagues,
Danny,
Thank you for your comments and please see the response to your comments. Sorry
for the delay.
Roque.
>
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>
>> The authors have requested a WG LC for draft "Algorithm Agility Procedure
>> for RPKI."
>>
>> The document and the draft v
