Re: The Cidr Report
[This was started last month. been a little busy. unsuprisingly I only had to *add* an incident and it still works.] On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 02:47:30PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: [snip] Yes it means what you think. No, I don't see anyone giving a rat's patootie about aggregation. I was starting to think I was the only one still reading the reports. Had a half-written rant each time interesting events happened, just been too busy. In recent months: - on the 4th->5th of November, the (reported) table bloated by ~9k pfefixes overnight. not an eyebrow raised. - when the table bloated over 140k, just this last July, the report was hosed at the end of a cycle obviously hit its own MAXINT. Not a comment from regular report readers, nor even a mocking Nelson "Ha-Haw" post by those taking the actions. - this month, another knee was at 150k [Dec 4th] and similarly garbled results came out. Again, no response. ...in this one year we've seen the shape of the climb return to the curve characterized by two years 99-01. Going for e? I'm not quite sure what the current point of the report is if no-one responds to even it breaking. I never saw a single post following up to to the actual purpose and policy issues from October's "aggregation & table entries" thread. Other than the specifics of multihomed customers and RPF issues, my point about segregation of internal and externaal policies and the reflection in the "announce used" vs "announce allocated" was neither agreed, refuted, nor even commented further. I have seen deaggregators claim 'security' [shred the routing table in response to windows worms scanning their classical-B], or assume that if Some Other Company can base their entire business plan on moving the costs of 'optimized' deaggregation onto the global community (beyond their providers), then why can't they. When I'm feeling conspiracy-minded, it seems that those of a certain size are trying to squeeze the smaller folks out of the business by encouraging the behavior of bloat. But then I correct the angle of my tinfoil beanie and realize they are just lazy. Their laziness does directly cost any newly-multihoming enterprises; some of the networks who are contributing to the garbage still tell customers that full tables will fit into 128M on a cisco. (eg, http://www.sprintlink.net/support/bgp_request.html) It is disappointing and frankly I can't see a way past it. When 2914 finally slid down to the lowest common denominator, the last 'big stick' was gone. 1239 is unapologetically violating their own customer bgp policies in this regard (point 9 on http://www.sprintlink.net/policy/bgp.html). The list goes on and on. Otherwise reasonable people have refuted logic and claim adding more data into the system doesn't increase churn effect and thereby degrade stability. Control theory and structured programming be damned, they say "it hasn't melted yet." Perhaps they want to see if they can make Metcalfe's predict come true, just 10 years too early? The baseline expectation is that the DFZ carries rechability data. Any more-specific data of interest is exchanged between parties who want it, request it, or pay for it. "Being conservative in what you send" also applies to anticipating *others* not being liberal in what they receive. There's a whole lot of non-conservative senders out there, and when they have reachability problems of their own making, with simple and trivial fixes if they had only thought things through in the first place, they have no-one but themselves to blame. Those believing otherwise are encouraged to send real, hard data. There is no meaningful data I can find since the Bellovin/Bush/ Griffin/Rexford 2001 paper. Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
- this month, another knee was at 150k [Dec 4th] and similarly garbled results came out. Again, no response. ...in this one year we've seen the shape of the climb return to the curve characterized by two years 99-01. Going for e? I'm not quite sure what the current point of the report is if no-one responds to even it breaking.
Knee? Shape? Curve? Are you reading the same CIDR report that I see here every Friday? The report that I see is basically a dump of raw data. Perhaps the author needs to remember the distinction between data and information and make the CIDR report into something that people *WANT* to read. This posting of yours contained far more information than any CIDR report.
Those believing otherwise are encouraged to send real, hard data. There is no meaningful data I can find since the Bellovin/Bush/ Griffin/Rexford 2001 paper.
I don't know why people like to post cryptic references to documents or meetings etc. Perhaps there is an implicit desire to hide it from outsiders who are not part of the secret inner circle? Perhaps this type of behavior is at the root of the growing problems, i.e. clue is not being spread around because people are too cliquish in the way that they present this info. I'm not talking about NANOG meetings here, just the list, which arguably reaches more people than the meetings. Now, on to Bellovin et al. Janet Rexford wrote this paper on filtering http://www.research.att.com/~jrex/papers/filter.pdf This was presented at NANOG but the NANOG site here http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0105/prefix.html points to Janet's site here http://www.research.att.com/~jrex/nanog/lost.html (note the word LOST in the URL) which points to Randy's slides here http://psg.com/~randy/010521.nanog/ unfortunately those appear to be lost... But there is some video from IETF 51 here http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ietf51.html which might be the same stuff. Bush talks on Routing Issues. One would think that if the problems noted in 2001 are not being solved, then perhaps a review of this material might prove more fruitful than more studies of the data. According to the plot here http://www.cidr-report.org/ the average announcements per origin AS has actually taken a turn for the better. And the chart of the BGP table here http://bgp.potaroo.net/ seems more like a power curve than the exponential curve prior to 2001. --Michael Dillon --Michael Dillon
More on BGP table size and the number of fragmentary announcements in the Internet http://www.tm.uka.de/idrws/2004/contributions2004/IDRWS2004--04--Huston_Geof... This is Geoff Huston's presentation at the Inter-Domain Routing Workshop in May 2004. Slides for all the other talks here http://www.tm.uka.de/idrws/2004/contributions2004/ I suggest that if people find this stuff useful, they might want to ask the authors to provide an update at the next NANOG meeting. As for Joe's lament about no new studies, I think that after it was pointed out that BGP table growth had halted http://www.netsys.com/library/papers/cengiz-bgp-2002-08.pdf many people probably thought that the problem had been solved forever by the telecom collapse. --Michael Dillon
On Dec 13, 2004, at 6:39 AM, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
- this month, another knee was at 150k [Dec 4th] and similarly garbled results came out. Again, no response. ...in this one year we've seen the shape of the climb return to the curve characterized by two years 99-01. Going for e? I'm not quite sure what the current point of the report is if no-one responds to even it breaking.
Knee? Shape? Curve? Are you reading the same CIDR report that I see here every Friday? The report that I see is basically a dump of raw data. Perhaps the author needs to remember the distinction between data and information and make the CIDR report into something that people *WANT* to read. This posting of yours contained far more information than any CIDR report.
The author is providing a service by giving us raw data. If that is all they want to do, we cannot (and should not) force them to do more. Besides, I like raw data. :-) Also, as for the "knee" Joe mentioned, I think he is talking about the fact the report went wonky. Look at the data presented in the last CIDR report - it is nonsense, obviously in error. This is not the "shape" of the "curve", it is the data itself. -- TTFN, patrick
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 01:08:39PM -0500, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Dec 13, 2004, at 6:39 AM, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote: [my attribution clipped -jzp]
- this month, another knee was at 150k [Dec 4th] and similarly garbled results came out. Again, no response. ...in this one year we've seen the shape of the climb return to the curve characterized by two years 99-01. Going for e? I'm not quite sure what the current point of the report is if no-one responds to even it breaking.
Knee? Shape? Curve? Are you reading the same CIDR report that I see here every Friday? The report that I see is basically a dump of raw data. Perhaps the author needs to remember the distinction between data and information and make the CIDR report into something that people *WANT* to read. This posting of yours contained far more information than any CIDR report. [snip]
Also, as for the "knee" Joe mentioned, I think he is talking about the fact the report went wonky. Look at the data presented in the last CIDR report - it is nonsense, obviously in error. This is not the "shape" of the "curve", it is the data itself.
Correct on 'knee' but for crying out loud, follow the pointy clicky references to the website. Of course there isn't going to be a curve in email [you want ascii plots? how 1980s], but the email quite clearly points you the way to the site where there is some analysis of the raw data. For many of us, the mail is a reminder 'here's the current raw info, check the detailed stuff over here'. There is no secret cabal or hidden ionfo, the report email Joe, finding it a sad state of affairs that he must cut and paste "http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fas4637%2fbgp%2dactive%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step" into this message for people to actually look at the graph. PS "2001 bellovin bush griffin rexford" entered into google hits the specific reference quite nicely - sorry i didn't include the title. as michael pointed out the specific links migrate all the time, so i was purposefully avoiding 'where it can be found at this moment' [try http://www.research.att.com/~jrex/papers/filter.pdf] -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Correct on 'knee' but for crying out loud, follow the pointy clicky references to the website. Of course there isn't going to be a curve in email [you want ascii plots? how 1980s], but the email quite clearly points you the way to the site where there is some analysis of the raw data.
My bad ;-) But I include the CIDR reports website in my complaint about data versus information. Yes it does have SOME analysis and that is good. But the way it is presented overwhelms one with data and obscures the point of the website. Also, I somehow missed the URL for the plot that you posted even though I've been to this website several times. In fact, it shows that when Cengiz/Packeteer presented the findings showing almost no growth, the routing table was about to begin growing again at the same rate as prior to the telecom collapse. Packeteer's data did get a certain amount of press coverage, Lightreading for instance, so maybe that's why most people stopped looking at how to control routing table growth. However, CAIDA did make a presentation about atoms in the AS path last fall http://www.caida.org/projects/routing/atoms/documents/atoms-widew0311.pdf If only everyone ran their BGP processes on servers rather than routers, people could actually begin using this now because the code is available http://www.caida.org/projects/routing/atoms/ Now that, whether you agree with the approach or not, is definitely something new in regards to managing routing table growth. --Michael Dillon
participants (3)
-
Joe Provo
-
Michael.Dillon@radianz.com
-
Patrick W Gilmore