Subject: Re: [rrg] Geoff Huston's BGP/DFZ research - 300k DFZ prefixes are the tip of

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:38:42 EDT

In einer eMail vom 14.03.2010 21:33:59 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

- After  filtering out duplicates, local effects and anomalies caused by 
a few  specific events, we find that there is an increasing trend in 
"baseline"  churn over the past six years, but that this growth is quite 
modest, and  much slower than the growth in the DFZ RIB  size.

I did comment on the RIB size, explained my point, by some chessboard  
example how bad the basic concept (DV) is.  I learnt what LISP is doing to  
improve the situation: LISP is eliminating an additional factor I haven't even  
considered in the first place when I came up with these horribly high  
numbers of routes. 
So my question is, why is this group so much convinced of collecting  
routes  rather than of collecting topological links ??? This is the #1  question 
and much more important than the CES versus CEE issue.
 
Particularly when there are so many and so major technological  additional 
advantages in case BGP provided topological information. And the  hereby 
needed "update churn" is such minor, that it could be afforded as  even some 
additional solution in parallel.
 
I have been watching this discussion for about six or seven years, at least 
 since the Prague meeting.
I have expressed several times that it may take patience and I do know  
that all other DV-based solutions will be prioritized first. But how many  more 
years does this group want to go on in this way? It seems to be easier to  
show that p equals np than to convince this group about the most obvious 
routing  facts.
 
Really, this #1 question deserves a severe discussion.
 
Heiner

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:00:07 -0700

On Mar 14, 2010, at 3:38 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> In einer eMail vom 14.03.2010 21:33:59 Westeuropäische Normalzeit  
> schreibt [email-masked]:
> I did comment on the RIB size, explained my point, by some  
> chessboard example how bad the basic concept (DV) is.  I learnt what  
> LISP is doing to improve the situation: LISP is eliminating an  
> additional factor I haven't even considered in the first place when  
> I came up with these horribly high numbers of routes.
> routes  rather than of collecting topological links ??? This is the  
> #1 question and much more important than the CES versus CEE issue.

Heiner,

1/ I am not quite clear why collecting topological links is the #1  
question for RRG/routing scalability solution development

2/ my group has been collecting Internet AS level topology for the  
last 5 years.
the following one is the most recent paper:
The (in)Completeness of the Observed Internet AS-level Structure
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Feb 2010.

although the paper just got published, some of the numbers may have  
already changed in reality. However one fact should remain true: by  
putting BGP data from all the sources we can get our hand on, the  
collected results still miss majority of the peering links between ASes.

> Particularly when there are so many and so major technological  
> additional advantages in case BGP provided topological information.  
> And the hereby needed "update churn" is such minor, that it could be  
> afforded as even some additional solution in parallel.
>
> I have been watching this discussion for about six or seven years,  
> at least since the Prague meeting.
> I have expressed several times that it may take patience and I do  
> know that all other DV-based solutions will be prioritized first.  
> But how many more years does this group want to go on in this way?  
> It seems to be easier to show that p equals np than to convince this  
> group about the most obvious routing facts.
>

Lixia