Presentation on theme: "Internet Routing Instability OFFENSE Scott Crosby Atul Singh."— Presentation transcript:
Internet Routing Instability OFFENSE Scott Crosby Atul Singh
Critique Poor title Level of contribution Clarity of presentation Correctness Methodology Claims Relevance
Poor Title Not about stability –But, its about routing traffic –Doesn’t tell desirable updates from undesirable updates Better title : Characterization of BGP routing traffic
Desirable and Necessary TopologyPolicy Change nothing Route updates Change state Undesirable
Contribution Measurement results must be clear for this to be a contribution Most paths are stable –Already known from Paxon Free debugging –bad implementations –vendor screw ups
Clarity Figure 2 –Only shows 10% of the picture – Where is WWDup? –Appears uncorrected for missing data Useless to estimate true distribution –Can’t eyeball ratio of different categories
Clarity Figure 3 –Impressive graph with ~30,000 sample points –Unreadable, unnecessary –Only discusses trends – should graph trends.
Fig 3 : Internet forwarding instability density measure at Mae-east Exchange point during 1996.
Correctness '99% of routing messages are pathological'? –No data to backup their claim Analysis of routing messages –Where’s the table of the number of each type? –Where’s the table estimating the number of unnecessary routing messages?
Methodology Only 5 sites, why is that enough? –Discount private exchanges Do the instabilities actually effect performance? –Claim yes, but no evidence –Ugliness is not a crime Uses prefix-pair tuple –How to deal with aggregation?
Claims ‘routing instability contributes to poor end- to-end performance?’ –Paxon paper shows 1% problems ‘high levels of instability can lead to packet loss’ –Paxon shows this is rare –Unverified
Relevance Does instability matter? –If the network changes, it changes –A network with static routes would be perfectly stable But not robust Debug vendor X’s code Obsolescent –new routers contain a full forwarding table in RAM Care about end-to-end performance
It’s a dirty job to critique but someone had to do it Poor title Level of contribution Clarity of presentation Correctness Methodology Claims Relevance