On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jakob Heitz <jakob.he...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Don't forget, BGPSEC sends one prefix per update. > Current traffic is 2 to 3 prefixes per update.
There's actually some research on this, I recall the number 'globally' as 1.2 avg packing... but internally, that may be different, of course. -chris >> -----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: Sriram, Kotikalapudi; sidr wg list >> Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs >> >> >> 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 > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
