Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 04:50:58PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > I won't delve into the operational complexities of getting operators > > to supplement their existing transitve community with a > > non-transitive variant, especially in context of route servers or > > sibling networks. > >

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 09/08/16 17:04, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 04:50:58PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Ok - I assume that means that being able to accept a blackholed /32 >> doesn't therefore mean having to accept other BGP announcements for >> /32's without any additional

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dear Stephen, On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:31:12AM -0700, Stephen Farrell wrote: > First, I have to say that I'm pretty ignorant about practical routing > operations, so my plan is to briefly discuss this and to then probably > move to an abstain position, unless the issues I raise resonate with >

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 8, 2016, at 15:37, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > Sorry for the slow response here, had some distraction. > > Responses to two of the bits of my discuss below. I need to read > more of the thread to figure where we are with point (1)...

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Sorry for the slow response here, had some distraction. Responses to two of the bits of my discuss below. I need to read more of the thread to figure where we are with point (1)... On 03/08/16 17:02, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Stephen Farrell

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Smith, Donald Cc: Randy Bush; Christopher Morrow; GMO Crops; The IESG Subject: Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi, On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 04:39:56PM +, Smith, Donald wrote: > This discusses neighboring networks, and lo

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 04:39:56PM +, Smith, Donald wrote: > This discusses neighboring networks, and local scope, so one would assume in > most cases these are directly connected peers (or not many hops away), I > think the security section should recommend use of GTSM on such

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Crops; The IESG Subject: Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > doesn't look new to me, no. and 'worse', today someone COULD just (if > they are in the right place and can do bgp packet creation,etc) just > tag all of your annou

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> doesn't look new to me, no. and 'worse', today someone COULD just (if > they are in the right place and can do bgp packet creation,etc) just > tag all of your announcments to your provider(s) with the local > provider version of this community, blackholing all of your traffic. note the string

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 3 Aug 2016, at 19:02, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > doesn't look new to me, no. and 'worse', today someone COULD just (if they > are in the right place and can do bgp packet creation,etc) just tag all of > your announcments to your provider(s) with the local

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:06:22PM +, Smith, Donald wrote: > Note everywhere this says BHF I assumed DBHF not Source based BHFing. I > suspect SBHF is out of scope for this effort. I could be wrong. source-based blackholing in remote networks is something I do not consider viable - what

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 8/3/16 8:31 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Christopher Morrow < christopher.mor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In the scenario where we want to enable one provider to signal to the > other provider: "please take this action" > > community is the 'best' option... you can signal something meaningful with >

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:45 PM, heasley wrote: > Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:02:36PM -0400, Christopher Morrow: > > > (2) IIUC, this proposal envisages BGP speakers commonly > > > telling others to blackhole specific /32's or /128's. And > > > of course as the draft says BGP

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:31:12AM -0700, Stephen Farrell wrote: > (1) I agree with the points raised in IETF LC that the > transitive nature of this proposal has dangers that may > outweigh its utility. Was there discussion in the WG about > potential solutions that do not have the transitivity >

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:02:36PM -0400, Christopher Morrow: > > (2) IIUC, this proposal envisages BGP speakers commonly > > telling others to blackhole specific /32's or /128's. And > > of course as the draft says BGP doesn't provide us with a > > way to "prevent the unauthorized modification of >

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Stephen Farrell > wrote: > > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses

Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the

[GROW] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to