On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> "> I would really like to echo Chris's last paragraph here. What do you
>> think is a reasonable time to propagate from an operator editing the
>> RPKI (A) -> 99.9% of Bs?
>>
>> I understand that half a day is way too long. Instantaneous is
>> theoretically impossible when BGP and RPKI are separate. But is there
>> really no reasonable pragmatic indication of what would be 'good
>> enough' for the real world? E.g. if we can come up with a structure
>> that enables repositories to support 100k RP tools ('B', assuming 2
>> gatherers per ASN) getting their *updates* (full dump separate thread
>> please) every 10 minutes, is that good enough?
>>
>
> So, instead of continuing a futile discussion, why not better start
> working on a workable requirement?
I think a number of us in this ``futile'' argument have been pushing pretty
hard to start (or some may claim revive) the requirements process. The very
fact that we are even talking about freshness and liveliness of data is a
result of a few of us having to request/re-request/write drafts/do formal
analysis on existing measurement/swrite tech notes/re-request again/etc. imho,
the only reason anyone is _now_ saying, ``half a day is way too long'' is
because it has taken this long to get traction from the group.
My 0.02 about the above is that the first part of Tim's para talks about
finding a requirement, but the 2nd part presumes the existence of a design
(repos and structures)... Let's talk about requirements first. If we need use
cases and threat models before that, then let's go _there_ first, and then on
to requirements. I feel like your comments above take for granted the fact
that several of us have had to work very hard to get to this stage.
Eric
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
