[161549] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing table go boom (was: Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Mar 19 15:16:13 2013
In-Reply-To: <1B9DEBDC-D513-43EB-9700-B1125BA43879@puck.nether.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:07:44 -0400
To: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
[Thanx for changing subject - should have done it myself a couple posts ago.=
]
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.=20
On Mar 19, 2013, at 14:26, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>=20
>> We've been saying "unconstrained growth bad" for BGP for years. Presumabl=
y we're not all insane. Where is the science?
>=20
> I think there is a lot of fear around this topic. I'm waiting to see the g=
reat meltdown at 512k fib entries in networks. We saw the same at 128k and=
256k with some platforms. The impact on 512k will be just as great if not l=
arger, but also very transient. =20
No way we transition to LISP (or anything else) before hitting that wall. So=
sit back & enjoy the fireworks. My guess is they will be I impressive and s=
hort-lived. But I've been wrong before.
> I've observed a great deal of asymmetrical BGP participants in recent year=
s. They send a set of routes, sometimes small for their own global good, bu=
t take only on-net or default routes from their providers.
>=20
> There is also the fact that many traffic-engineering techniques are quite c=
oarse due to the protocol design. The days of using prepending and aggregat=
ion/deaggregation are still with us, even when more sophisticated methods (c=
ommunities, etc..) exist. I'm starting to decide that the real issue is tha=
t most people just can't route (including some major networks). The system w=
orks because the broken part gets greased, but there are a lot of cosmetic a=
nd non-cosmetic defects that linger because people don't realize they are th=
ere or are a problem. If you want data on that, including my minimalistic "=
faux" science, there is plenty to be had.
I'm wondering why that will be any better if we swap out the underlying prot=
ocol. It's not like trying something new will -increase- the average clue le=
vel of the monkeys banging on keyboards trying to accidentally compose a rou=
ting sonnet.=20
And up-ending the installed base is almost certainly going to decrease the d=
(clue)/dt, as well as the second derivative.=20
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
Which is all just a fancy way of saying you can't fix people being idiots by=
changing a protocol, or hardware, or ... well, anything.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
