On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. … and easier to talk about as well :-) I think that you left out: 2.5) Hey, where the hell did my traffic go?! Bah, someone over there fat fingered and all my traffic follo .. and it's back... W > >> >> 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 > -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
