>From: Brian Dickson <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 5:19 PM ... snip ... >(We authors have done extensive analysis, too much to present on-list, IMHO.)
Authors-team discussion (design rationale) slides with extensive scenario analyses are here: (some of it presented in IDR/GROW WG meetings) https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018/10/22/rlp_using_bgp_community-v4.pdf Sriram ________________________________________ From: GROW <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Nick Hilliard <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 6:22 AM To: Brian Dickson Cc: mailto:[email protected] Subject: Re: [GROW] call for feedback on draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation Brian Dickson wrote on 15/06/2019 00:42: > Please take a look and, if you think this is an important problem to fix > (route leaks), add your voice here. there are two things here: route leaks (important), and the proposal in draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation. We can probably all agree that route leaks are a persistent threat. What concerns me about this draft is that it takes an over-simplified view of real-life networks and there's not a small amount of implied pigeon-holing going on. The difficult with the draft is that many networks don't fall into these neatly defined categories. There are back-doors, partial transit configs, PNI arrangements, subnet leaks and all sorts of weird things out there, none of which are easy to categorise, but which nevertheless make up an important part of the routing ecosystem. Characterisation of these edge cases is a difficult problem. I'm not convinced this can be done adequately without an expressive grammar (note: not rpsl). I'm also not convinced that the approach taken in draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation is generic enough to be worth deploying. Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
