Hi,
I support the adoption of the draft. Some comments that may need to be
considered:
1. The draft was proposed to GROW WG, but the wg info on the top of the first
page of the draft is opsec.
2. The meanings of "upstream" in this draft and the ASPA draft are different.
According to the term definition in this draft, the ASPA upstream verification
should be conducted for the routes from *downstream* or peer.
In section 3: "
Upstream:
In a direct relationship between two ASes the one providing
upstream to the other. (See: [RFC9234], also known as the
provider in a customer-provider relationship.)
"
In section 7.2.2: "
In [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification], see following sections based
on the neighbor relationship:
* Section 6.1 for routes received from upstreams and lateral peers.
* Section 6.2 for routes received from downstreams and mutual-
transits.
"
3. The term "Mutual Upstream" is not used. It should be "mutual transit" or
"sibling". Also, some terms should be unified, e.g., "upstream" "upstream
provider"; "Internet peer" "lateral peer" "peer"; etc.
4. In my understanding, some recommended operations have overlapped
protections/functions. For example, both OTC RFC 9234 and RPKI-ASPA can detect
route leaks. Should an operator deploy both techniques or just one of them
(under which conditions)?
Best,
Nan
> -Original Message-
> From: GROW On Behalf Of Job Snijders
> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 11:45 PM
> To: grow@ietf.org
> Subject: [GROW] Working Group Call for draft-fiebig-grow-bgpopsecupd (start
> 06/Dec/2023 end 06/Jan/2024)
>
> Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 04:42:05PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> Dear GROW,
>
> The author of draft-fiebig-grow-bgpopsecupd asked whether the GROW
> working group could consider adoption of their internet-draft.
>
> This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
> internet-draft should be adopted.
>
> Title: Updated BGP Operations and Security
> Abstract:
> The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the protocol almost exclusively
> used in the Internet to exchange routing information between network
> domains. Due to this central nature, it is important to understand the
> security and reliability measures that can and should be deployed to
> prevent accidental or intentional routing disturbances.
> ... [abstract snipped for brevity] ...
>
> This internet-draft aims to update RFC7454 / BCP 194.
>
> The Internet-Draft can be found here:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-fiebig-grow-bgpopsecupd-00.html
>
> Please share with the mailing list if you would like this work to be adopted
> by
> GROW, are willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this draft!
>
> WG Adoption call ends January 6th, 2024.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job / Chris
> GROW co-chairs
>
> ___
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
