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?
Anyway, I guess I was mostly just curious about what kinds of evaluations have been done, thanks. :) Eric On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote: > Now the ops doc has much longer beaconing interval recommendations > for what you may consider a normal prefix. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-01#section-7 > > Normal Prefix: Most prefixes SHOULD announce with a signature > validity of a week and beacon every three days. > > Sriram > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jakob Heitz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 12:09 PM > To: Sriram, Kotikalapudi > Cc: Christopher Morrow; Eric Osterweil; sidr wg list > Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs > > Proposal was 24 hour beacon timeout and 3 beacons per timeout. That makes 3 > beacons per day. > > -- > Jakob Heitz. > > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
