On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Eric Osterweil <eosterw...@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)
I think it is just a concrete way to relate the amount of data being consumed today, to what may be needed tomorrow. It isn't so much that 1 byte = good and 10 bytes = bad. More that in trying to quantitative compare two behaviors, finding a common reference point seems like a good start, imho. I think a meaningful ratio is more useful, but it just needs something to compare. Eric _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
