On Nov 14, 2012, at 5:18 PM, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> GROW Folks, Hi! [SNIP] > > 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) > 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. Yes… > > 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. Personally I'm not convinced that the resolution to the "route leaks problem" needs to occur in BGP / needs to update BGP, so not sure if this gets 'fixed" in IDR, but I think that is does need to be worked on. > > 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'? 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 > > Thanks! > -Chris > (co-chair 1:2 of grow, and 1:3 in sidr) > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > -- Credo quia absurdum est. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
