On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Shane Amante <[email protected]> wrote:
>> is that better? I'm really asking whether or not there is a problem >> and if we (ietf in general) can get a solution (or even the >> requirements for a solution?) defined... > > Yes, there is a (big) operational problem wrt route-leaks. it'd be good to outline that as well in the document... often the 'mitm' problem is brought up, but honestly there are probably more cases of: 1) suboptimal routing (why am I routing through Chile to get to my next-door-asn?) 2) traffic loss (via too-small-pipes + congestion) 3) link costs (lookie at the transit pipe being full instead of the other one!) that happen and are simpler to show than other issues. > > Yes, we (IETF in general) should work toward a solution. As I stated > previously, I hope we remain open-minded as to the solution space and do not > pigeon-hole ourselves into thinking that one must exist inside BGP, either > solely or at all. > > -shane > > > >> -chris >> >>> >>>> 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
