[RRG] Comments on the Design Goals I-D

["K. Sriram" <ksriram@nist.gov>]

Tony:

I have marked my suggested changes in your I-D; 
please see the attached word document with highlighted text (in
red).
I am also copying the suggested changes here below as in-line
text.

In Section 3.8:

My suggestion in Section 3.8 is to replace the top two paragraphs
with the following four, which are inclusive of the content of original
paragraphs:

The routing subsystem is responsible for computing a path from any point
on the Internet to any other point in the Internet. The quality of the
routes that are computed can be measured by a number of metrics. A
comprehensive list of performance matrices and evaluation scenarios is
needed and can be perhaps fully addressed in a companion I-D or annex to
this document. Broadly the performance criteria would include metrics
such as route quality and stability, robustness, scaling, control-plane
load, inter-domain mobility optimization, etc.

Just to stimulate further thinking, we mention here some metrics that
seem to be obvious for the problem space that is in consideration. These
are table-size reduction ratio (TSRR), convergence time, and stretch (of
path length). To evaluate the metrics, a reference AS-level topology
should be defined together with appropriate service provider policies
(see [JSAC-NS06] for example). The baseline performance metrics would be
those for the current BGP routing over the reference topology. The TSRR
is the ratio of the size of the routing table for a proposed architecture
over that of the current BGP routing (for the reference topology).
Comparisons can be made for all the metrics of interest between new
addressing/routing architectures and those for the baseline case.
  
The stretch of a routing scheme is the maximum ratio of the length of the
routing path, on which a packet is delivered, to the length of the
shortest path from the source to the destination node, over all
source-destination pairs [PODC06]. Besides the maximum ratio, it would
also be of interest to compute the average and the CDF of the ratio that
characterizes the stretch. The CDF of the ratio would be in the form of
the percentage of source-destination pairs that experience stretch less
or equal to x% (x = 0% to 100% in increments of 10%).
  
To estimate the convergence time, a suitable reference perturbation from
the steady state of the routing state can be defined. The perturbation
can be in the form of restarts of some selected routers or perhaps some
TCP resets that would induce BGP resets on selected peering links. The
routing state re-convergence time should be measured for each of the
proposed addressing/routing architectures over the reference topology
under the reference perturbation condition.

In Section 3.9: 

My suggestion in Section 3.9 is to replace the paragraph there with the
following (includes the content of the original paragraph):

Currently, the routing subsystem is secured through a number of protocol
specific mechanisms of varying strength and applicability. Any new
architecture is required to provide at least the current level of
security. Given that working groups such as RPSEC and SIDR have already
identified systemic security weaknesses in the current system, the
routing security for any proposed new architectures should extend beyond
the current level. It should be noted that the current state of the art
in routing protocol security would advance by the time of deployment of a
new solution for addressing/routing. For example, the security solutions
from SIDR WG efforts in the IETF will likely progress to RFCs and could
be already in deployment in this time frame.

In Section 3.5:

Comment: At the end of this section, "without this painful
event" sounds subjective. 
To clarify, please replace "end-sites to change providers without
this painful event." with either
(a) "some end-sites should be allowed selectively to change
providers without requiring renumbering."  
or,
(b) "end-sites should be allowed to change providers (with
renumbering) but consideration should be 
given to minimizing the disruptive impact of the transition."

In Section 6.2:

Please add the following informative reference:
  
[JSAC-NS06]   K. Sriram, D. Montgomery, O. Borchert, O. Kim,
and D.R. Kuhn, "Study of BGP Peering Session Attacks and Their
Impacts on Routing Performance," IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications: Special issue on High-Speed Network Security, Vol. 24,
No. 10, October 2006, pp. 1901-1915.

I hope this is helpful. Thank you.
Sriram

K. Sriram, Ph.D. 
Advanced Network Technologies Division
National Institute of Standards and Technology 
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8920 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8920
Phone: (301) 975-3973
E-Mail: ksriram@nist.gov
Web: 

http://www.antd.nist.gov/~ksriram/
=======================================================
At 03:55 PM 4/20/2007, Tony Li wrote:

FYI...
Begin forwarded message:

From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Date: April 20, 2007 12:50:01 PM PDT
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-00.txt
Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

Title: Design Goals for Scalable Internet Routing
Author(s): T. Li
Filename: draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-00.txt
Pages: 9
Date: 2007-4-20

   It is commonly recognized that the Internet routing and addressing
   architecture is facing challenges in scalability, mobility, multi-
   homing, and inter-domain traffic engineering.  The RRG is designing
   an alternate architecture to meet these challenges.  This document
   consists of a prioritized list of design goals for the architecture.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-00.txt

Attachment: draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-00_KS_rev.doc
Description: MS-Word document