Subject: [Idr] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC4274 (3777)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:44:10 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC4274, "BGP-4 Protocol Analysis". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4274&eid=3777

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <[email-masked]>
Date Reported: 2006-07-08
Held by: Stewart Bryant (IESG)

Original Text
-------------

(5)  like (4)

Section 6.1.2, on page 8, exhibits similar symptoms as noted above.
The RFC says:

   To quantify the worst-case memory requirements for BGP, we denote the
   total number of networks in the Internet as N, the mean AS distance
   of the Internet as M (distance at the level of an autonomous system,
   expressed in terms of the number of autonomous systems), the total
   number of unique AS paths as A.  Then the worst-case memory
   requirements (MR) can be expressed as

           MR = O(N + (M * A))

   Because a mean AS distance M is a slow moving function of the
   interconnectivity ("meshiness") of the Internet, for all practical
   purposes the worst-case router memory requirements are on the order
|  of the total number of networks in the Internet multiplied by the
|  number of peers that the local system is peering with.  [...]

Apparently, the first part of that text has been revised eliminating
the role of the peering count.  Thus the last sentence should have
been updated accordingly, to make it match the new formula.

The second paragraph thus perhaps should say:

   Because a mean AS distance M is a slow moving function of the
   interconnectivity ("meshiness") of the Internet, for all practical
   purposes the worst-case router memory requirements are on the order
|  of the total number of networks in the Internet.  [...]

Corrected Text
--------------

Notes
-----
from errata 148

Rather than follow this suggestion (and drop the number of peers term out of the prose) it may be more would be more accurate to insert a number of peers term into the formula, e.g. MR = O(P * (N + (M * A))), where P is the number of peers.

This does not impact interoperability and thus should be looked at in any future update of the RFC.

--------------------------------------
RFC4274 (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-analysis-07)
--------------------------------------
Title               : BGP-4 Protocol Analysis
Publication Date    : January 2006
Author(s)           : D. Meyer, K. Patel
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : Inter-Domain Routing
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG