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 withdrawal advertise a dup of the previous advertisement withdrawal advertise a dup etc i.e. in this case the dups are not irrelevant, and in this case caching of previous validation outcomes would be beneficial. Geoff _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
