draft-foo-sidr-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help seems as a good start.
I would suggest to make it more about leaks in general and not just
about security attacks (considering that many of the incidents with
leaks are mistakes and no targeted attacks).
my 20 cents,
as
On 04/12/2012 02:04, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> ok, so after some considerable discussion (and correction of my
> non-optimally-phrased questions) it seems there's some energy in
> discussing this in GROW...
>
> It seems that the draft: draft-foo-sidr-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help
>
> looks like a good starting point for this discussion, could we re-spin
> this as a GROW draft (re-title and submit) and perhaps send along
> updates according to the comments received (if any?).
>
> Once that appears it'd be grand if the list folks could discuss it a
> bit more so we can see where the discussion leads.
>
> -chris
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Christopher Morrow
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> GROW Folks,
>> The SIDR working group is working on security for origination and path
>> data related to BGP routes. There has been a note (a few) about SIDR's
>> effect(s) or not on 'route leaks'. There have even been a few notes on
>> 'what is a route leak'. 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)
>> 2) Are 'route leaks' a problem that Operations folks care about
>> 3) Should IDR (or the IETF proper) address 'route leaks' with some
>> form(s) of fix action.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
