Chris, See below.
On Nov 14, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> wrote: [--snip--] > To date there is a draft which discusses route leaks: > > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foo-sidr-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help-02> > > where the authors have attempted to describe one (or many possible) > situations which are called 'route leaks'. They also attempt to > outline security issues which are follow-on effects of the situation > described. > > SIDR attempted to look at route-leaks and came up a bit stymied, they > asked IDR for some assistance with the issue, IDR pushed back to GROW > to decide: > 1) What is a 'route leak' (perhaps the above draft identifies one > examplar to be used in that definition) See aforementioned draft. It's the most _concise_ definition of the problem, as observed repeatedly in the Internet. > 2) Are 'route leaks' a problem that Operations folks care about Yes! > 3) Should IDR (or the IETF proper) address 'route leaks' with some > form(s) of fix action. WRT "Should IDR" ... that's like Henry Ford asking what color "Model T" I'd like, right? Look, no offense to the folks in IDR :-), but as with every other WG their present charter is narrowly defined to 'enhancements to BGP'. I would hope that _when_the_time_comes_ we remain open-minded about conducting a thorough evaluation of the solution space, before deciding to further refine one, or more, of those solutions to a standard, or set of standards. So, presently, I would not be in favor of exclusively asking IDR to fix 'route leaks', given the concerns I've raised above. FWIW, I'm not clear on what you're proposing with "the IETF proper" ... so I can't say "yes" to that option either. > The end result of the above 3 steps is to push back into IDR one of > two action requests: > 1) "Yes, route leaks are a problem, please fix them." > or > 2) "No, route leaks are not a problem, take no action." > > If #1 above is the answer, and IDR decides that changes to the BGP > protocol are warranted (or are a possible solution to the problem) > then SIDR has agreed to do what they can to 'secure' the bits > added/changed/used in that endeavor. Dare I ask what happens if IDR decides they do not have an answer? > Could we have some discussion on-list about this problem, and some > discussion about whether or not the draft referenced above fits the > definition we would like to use for 'route leak'? Um, yes, but then again I'm a co-author, so clearly you should take this answer with a healthy dose of salt. :-) > I would also like > the authors of the draft to decide where they would like to take their > draft: > 1) SIDR > 2) IDR > 3) GROW > 4) other IMO, since you're asking GROW, the answer should hopefully present itself. :-) -shane _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
