On 20/03/2010, at 8:40 AM, Tony Li wrote:

>>> Indeed, you're trading systemic state for implementation optimizations,
>>> in lots of places where issues such as this are amplified.  > 40%
>>> duplicates in a system today ma not be a problem, however, if prefix,
>>> origin, and path validation techniques are employed down the road in a
>>> secure routing protocol built on the current model, and every one of
>>> those updates have to be processed, I suspect at some point senders will
>>> be a bit more conservative in what they send.
>> No necessarily - the receivers can cache validation outcomes with reasoinbly
>> efficient results. See 
>> http://www.potaroo.net/papers/phd/pam-2007/bgpcache.pdf
>> for a study of this approach.
> One can also point out that an update that is a duplicate of what's already
> been accepted is irrelevant.  Regardless of whether it has been validated or
> not.  

I'm not sure I understand this Tony. What is in my mind when I read this is 
a counter case when a BGP speaker sees from a peer:

advertise a dup of the previous advertisement
advertise a dup

i.e. in this case the dups are not irrelevant, and in this case caching of 
validation outcomes would be beneficial.


rrg mailing list

Reply via email to