Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-02.txt

Alejandro Acosta <[email protected]> Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:03:34 -0400
Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.idr
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
On 11/10/19 1:01 AM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:
> Alejandro,
> Sander,
>
> [Alejandro]
>>> As a comment, we did a small research and 
>>> these are our findings (hope the table shows ok):
>>> .....snip.....
> [Sander]
>> Those numbers are very manageable. If we gather a couple 
>> of volunteers we could personally contact each AS.
> Thanks for the measurement numbers and your comments.
>
> We had earlier reported similar numbers (totals across all RIR regions)
> with many more details:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/tE8o0HZeLLUEulMkszVBlxqILeU
>
> The link to our detailed data is here:
> https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019/10/23/detailed-as_set-analysis.txt 


Thanks for this, happy to see our results are similar.

We also published something, a little bit longer that what I sent to the
list few days ago.

https://labs.lacnic.net/Una_mirada_al_uso_de_BGP_AS_SET_en_la_DFZ/


Regards,

P.S. Sorry, in Spanish :-{}



>
> Our numbers and yours are consistent, except that we also showed that
> globally there only 21 unique routes (prefixes) with AS_SET that seem meaningful!
> The rest of the routes with AS_SET (about 450) seem meaningless; details at the link above.
>
> Even the 21 will likely do fine if they did not use AS_SET. They can deaggregate and 
> provide the full AS path or they can aggregate and put in AGGREGATOR and
> ATOMIC_AGGREGATE.  If you look at this part of our data:
>
> *** When there is AGGREGATOR without AS_SET ***
> 	# Unique prefixes (with or without AS_SET) : 826535
> 	# Unique prefixes without AS_SET but with AGGREGATOR: 75698
> 	% Unique prefixes without AS_SET but with AGGREGATOR: 9.158%
> 	# Unique prefixes with ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: 47258 
> 	# Unique prefixes with AGGREGATOR and ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: 44971
> 	# Unique prefixes with AGGREGATOR and without ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: 31769
>            (the last three lines added newly)
>
> it seems clear that a very large number of routes/ASes aggregate without AS_SET
> and very likely many of them face similar scenario as those with AS_SET
> and yet they do not seem to encounter problems (despite not using AS_SET).
> I think the main reason is that even if the aggregate is received
> via another upstream provider and gets installed in as AS that contributed to the aggregate,
> the AS really never uses that aggregate to route data because it has received 
> the other components (more specifics) of the aggregate from the provider who aggregated.
> As Jeff has pointed out, if a more specific gets cut off (due to outage), then looping
> in the data plane can occur. 
> This would typically last only for a short period until recovery happens.
> Now a days, the recovery times are fast. And possibly looping of data for a brief period
> is not much worse than the data not reaching its destination for that period.  
>
> Sriram    
>   
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
pEpkey.asc (application/pgp-keys, 1.7 KB)