From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu May 3 07:13:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4604E21F85C9; Thu, 3 May 2012 07:13:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UHbRvKhHdaAY; Thu, 3 May 2012 07:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C156F21F8483; Thu, 3 May 2012 07:13:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120503141308.14323.24618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 07:13:08 -0700 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-02.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 14:13:09 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of= the IETF. Title : BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR) Author(s) : Robert Raszuk Christian Cassar Erik Aman Bruno Decraene Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-02.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2012-05-03 [RFC4456] asserts that, because the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) cost to a given point in the network will vary across routers, "the route reflection approach may not yield the same route selection result as that of the full IBGP mesh approach." One practical implication of this assertion is that the deployment of route reflection may thwart the ability to achieve hot potato routing. Hot potato routing attempts to direct traffic to the closest AS egress point in cases where no higher priority policy dictates otherwise. As a consequence of the route reflection method, the choice of exit point for a route reflector and its clients will be the egress point closest to the route reflector - and not necessarily closest to the RR clients. Section 11 of [RFC4456] describes a deployment approach and a set of constraints which, if satsified, would result in the deployment of route reflection yielding the same results as the iBGP full mesh approach. Such a deployment approach would make route reflection compatible with the application of hot potato routing policy. As networks evolved to accommodate architectural requirements of new services, tunneled (LSP/IP tunneling) networks with centralized route reflectors became commonplace. This is one type of common deployment where it would be impractical to satisfy the constraints described in Section 11 of [RFC4456]. Yet, in such an environment, hot potato routing policy remains desirable. This document proposes two new solutions which can be deployed to facilitate the application of closest exit point policy centralized route reflection deployments. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflec= tion-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflect= ion-02.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflectio= n/ From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Mon May 7 12:07:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5BE21F8675; Mon, 7 May 2012 12:07:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wSX1uQT3DtXA; Mon, 7 May 2012 12:07:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D08D21F844C; Mon, 7 May 2012 12:07:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id CAA86B1E008; Mon, 7 May 2012 12:05:14 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20120507190516.CAA86B1E008@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Cc: idr@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Idr] RFC 6608 on Subcodes for BGP Finite State Machine Error X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 19:07:31 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6608 Title: Subcodes for BGP Finite State Machine Error Author: J. Dong, M. Chen, A. Suryanarayana Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: May 2012 Mailbox: jie.dong@huawei.com, mach.chen@huawei.com, asuryana@cisco.com Pages: 5 Characters: 8612 Updates: RFC4271 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-idr-fsm-subcode-03.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6608.txt This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Finite State Machine (FSM) Error that could provide more information to help network operators in diagnosing BGP FSM issues and correlating network events. This document updates RFC 4271. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon May 7 14:03:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8AA421F856F; Mon, 7 May 2012 14:03:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.486 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XJhqSdTCaZea; Mon, 7 May 2012 14:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798BD21F8543; Mon, 7 May 2012 14:03:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120507210355.693.44647.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 14:03:55 -0700 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as0-04.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 21:03:56 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of= the IETF. Title : Codification of AS 0 processing. Author(s) : Warren Kumari Randy Bush Heather Schiller Keyur Patel Filename : draft-ietf-idr-as0-04.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2012-05-07 This document updates RFC 4271 and proscribes the use of AS 0 in BGP OPEN and AS_PATH / AS4_PATH BGP attribute. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-as0-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-as0-04.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-as0/ From xuxiaohu@huawei.com Fri May 11 02:19:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2F621F85FF for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:19:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.886 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.713, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zz04z2Kiu1ji for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EEF621F845D for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AFV06918; Fri, 11 May 2012 05:19:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.131) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:16:47 -0700 Received: from SZXEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.31) by dfweml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:16:54 -0700 Received: from SZXEML525-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.182]) by szxeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 11 May 2012 17:16:51 +0800 From: Xuxiaohu To: "idr@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-xu-idr-tunnel-address-prefix-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHNL1FyUvSHIMPWw0Wcrfe/+8X6CpbETIxQ Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:16:50 +0000 Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE02F215FD@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.108.4.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [Idr] fwd: New Version Notification for draft-xu-idr-tunnel-address-prefix-00.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:19:58 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQpUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IChodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFm dC14dS1pZHItdHVubmVsLWFkZHJlc3MtcHJlZml4LTAwKSBkZXNjcmliZXMgYSBuZXcgQkdQIGF0 dHJpYnV0ZSByZWZlcnJlZCB0byBhcyBUdW5uZWwgQWRkcmVzcyBQcmVmaXggQXR0cmlidXRlIGFu ZCBhIG5ldyBCR1AgYWRkcmVzcyBzcGVjaWZpYyBleHRlbmRlZCBjb21tdW5pdHkgcmVmZXJyZWQg dG8gYXMgVHVubmVsIEFkZHJlc3MgUHJlZml4IEV4dGVuZGVkIENvbW11bml0eSwgYm90aCBvZiB3 aGljaCBhcmUgaW50ZW5kZWQgZm9yIGZhY2lsaXRhdGluZyB0aGUgbG9hZC1iYWxhbmNpbmcgb2Yg SVAvR1JFIHR1bm5lbGVkIHRyYWZmaWMgKGUuZy4sIEwzVlBOLW92ZXItR1JFIHRyYWZmaWMpIGlu IHRoZSBjb3JlIG9mIElQLWVuYWJsZWQgUGFja2V0IFN3aXRjaCBOZXR3b3JrcyAoUFNOKS4NCg0K VGhlIGJhc2ljIGlkZWEgb2YgdGhpcyBtZXRob2QgaXM6IGEgZ2l2ZW4gKHR1bm5lbCkgZWdyZXNz IHJvdXRlciBzaWduYWxzIHRvICh0dW5uZWwpIGluZ3Jlc3Mgcm91dGVycyBhIHNwZWNpYWwgcHJl Zml4IGNhbGxlZCDigJx0dW5uZWwgYWRkcmVzcyBwcmVmaXjigJ0gdmlhIEJHUCBhbmQgYW55IGFk ZHJlc3NlcyBiZWdpbm5pbmcgd2l0aCB0aGF0IHByZWZpeCB3b3VsZCBiZSB1c2VkIGJ5IHRob3Nl IGluZ3Jlc3Mgcm91dGVycyBhcyB0dW5uZWwgZGVzdGluYXRpb24gYWRkcmVzc2VzIHdoZW4gdHVu bmVsaW5nIHRyYWZmaWMgdG93YXJkcyB0aGF0IGVncmVzcyByb3V0ZXIuIFRoZXJlZm9yZSBkaXN0 aW5jdCB0cmFmZmljIGZsb3dzIGJldHdlZW4gdGhhdCB0dW5uZWwgZW5kcG9pbnQgcGFpciBjb3Vs ZCBiZSBlbmNhcHN1bGF0ZWQgd2l0aCBhcyBtYW55IGRpZmZlcmVudCB0dW5uZWwgZGVzdGluYXRp b24gYWRkcmVzc2VzIGFzIHBvc3NpYmxlLiBJbiB0aGlzIHdheSwgY29yZSByb3V0ZXJzIGNvdWxk IGFjaGlldmUgYSBiZXR0ZXIgbG9hZC1iYWxhbmNpbmcgZm9yIHRob3NlIElQL0dSRSB0dW5uZWxl ZCB0cmFmZmljIHRocm91Z2ggcGVyZm9ybWluZyBoYXNoIGNhbGN1bGF0aW9uIGp1c3Qgb24gdGhl IGZpZWxkcyBpbiB0aGUgSVAgaGVhZGVyIChlLmcuLCBzb3VyY2UgSVAgYWRkcmVzcywgZGVzdGlu YXRpb24gSVAgYWRkcmVzcykuDQoNCkFueSBjb21tZW50cyBhbmQgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbnMgYXJlIHdl bGNvbWUuDQoNCkJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNClhpYW9odQ0KDQo+IC0tLS0t6YKu5Lu25Y6f5Lu2LS0t LS0NCj4g5Y+R5Lu25Lq6OiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5l dC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQo+IOWPkemAgeaXtumXtDogMjAxMuW5tDXmnIgxMeaXpSAxNjoz OA0KPiDmlLbku7bkuro6IFh1eGlhb2h1DQo+IOS4u+mimDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0 aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC14dS1pZHItdHVubmVsLWFkZHJlc3MtcHJlZml4LTAwLnR4dA0KPiANCj4g QSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LXh1LWlkci10dW5uZWwtYWRkcmVzcy1wcmVmaXgt MDAudHh0IGhhcyBiZWVuDQo+IHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgWGlhb2h1IFh1IGFu ZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCj4gDQo+IEZpbGVuYW1lOgkgZHJhZnQt eHUtaWRyLXR1bm5lbC1hZGRyZXNzLXByZWZpeA0KPiBSZXZpc2lvbjoJIDAwDQo+IFRpdGxlOgkJ IEJHUCBUdW5uZWwgQWRkcmVzcyBQcmVmaXggQXR0cmlidXRlIGFuZCBUdW5uZWwgQWRkcmVzcyBQ cmVmaXgNCj4gRXh0ZW5kZWQgQ29tbXVuaXR5DQo+IENyZWF0aW9uIGRhdGU6CSAyMDEyLTA1LTEx DQo+IFdHIElEOgkJIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KPiBOdW1iZXIgb2YgcGFnZXM6IDgN Cj4gDQo+IEFic3RyYWN0Og0KPiAgICBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGRlc2NyaWJlcyBhIG5ldyBCR1Ag YXR0cmlidXRlIHJlZmVycmVkIHRvIGFzIFR1bm5lbA0KPiAgICBBZGRyZXNzIFByZWZpeCBBdHRy aWJ1dGUgYW5kIGEgbmV3IEJHUCBhZGRyZXNzIHNwZWNpZmljIGV4dGVuZGVkDQo+ICAgIGNvbW11 bml0eSByZWZlcnJlZCB0byBhcyBUdW5uZWwgQWRkcmVzcyBQcmVmaXggRXh0ZW5kZWQgQ29tbXVu aXR5LA0KPiAgICBib3RoIG9mIHdoaWNoIGFyZSBpbnRlbmRlZCBmb3IgZmFjaWxpdGF0aW5nIHRo ZSBsb2FkLWJhbGFuY2luZyBvZg0KPiAgICBJUC9HUkUgdHVubmVsZWQgdHJhZmZpYyAoZS5nLiwg TDNWUE4tb3Zlci1HUkUgdHJhZmZpYykgaW4gdGhlIGNvcmUNCj4gICAgb2YgSVAtZW5hYmxlZCBQ YWNrZXQgU3dpdGNoIE5ldHdvcmtzIChQU04pLg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IFRoZSBJ RVRGIFNlY3JldGFyaWF0DQo= From jgs@juniper.net Wed May 16 12:40:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7EB21F85B9 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 12:40:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7d4vyuAIgs-D for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 12:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og120.obsmtp.com (exprod7og120.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6580B21F8593 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 12:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob120.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT7QCqvLgOT32wkmE33V2V1seob0Hn6zJ@postini.com; Wed, 16 May 2012 12:40:27 PDT Received: from [172.16.13.202] (172.16.13.202) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 16 May 2012 12:40:12 -0700 From: "John G. Scudder" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:40:12 -0400 Message-ID: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> To: "idr@ietf.org List" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Subject: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:40:28 -0000 Folks, We have received a request from the authors to adopt = draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document. Please send = your comments to the list. The deadline for comments is June 1, 2012 at = noon EDT. Thanks, --John From keyupate@cisco.com Wed May 16 12:50:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF72D21F8633 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 12:50:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hddzp3-Dz4G7 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 12:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F22B21F862F for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 12:50:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=keyupate@cisco.com; l=481; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337197846; x=1338407446; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=D+MKO8KMdmYcNFZsjUAWQZr1nqVjuJ7ZWHAT7nNF2Qg=; b=YULblLB2EUVsubPAqbQENafgtlOvpMKCGWld7q3D8qzrIzy2w5EeSEWZ yvwS+4x/fJN7aWD6UeVPd4F8EluBbHy8QpnJ4wHFhCu0bk7J+D0wvt590 BOwASKlUFcyIluPg1q5G8LX80LKNO/sM3jPUsdYHrEZr3TF0JPFJPdi7d I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsYGAIcEtE+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABEtAsCgQeCFQEBAQMBAQEBDwEnAgExEA0BCG0wAQEEARIih2cEAQubRKACBIsThVUDiGONF45XJ4FCgwk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,604,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="41960815" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 May 2012 19:50:46 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4GJokKv027674; Wed, 16 May 2012 19:50:46 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-239.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.105]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 16 May 2012 12:50:46 -0700 Received: from 128.107.163.90 ([128.107.163.90]) by xmb-sjc-239.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.105]) via Exchange Front-End Server email.cisco.com ([128.107.191.79]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 16 May 2012 19:50:46 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 12:53:38 -0700 From: Keyur Patel To: "John G. Scudder" , "idr@ietf.org List" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document Thread-Index: Ac0znZXRyMxxbLQ6IUKb3mB8jzjbSg== In-Reply-To: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2012 19:50:46.0586 (UTC) FILETIME=[2FA559A0:01CD339D] Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:50:47 -0000 Support. -Keyur On 5/16/12 12:40 PM, "John G. Scudder" wrote: > Folks, > > We have received a request from the authors to adopt > draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document. Please send your > comments to the list. The deadline for comments is June 1, 2012 at noon EDT. > > Thanks, > > --John > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From robert@raszuk.net Wed May 16 13:19:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0B221F85F7 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 13:19:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fQ2-rBUlTQNm for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 13:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83F421F85D9 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 13:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 12390 invoked by uid 399); 16 May 2012 20:19:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.58?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.31.240.29) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 16 May 2012 20:19:11 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 83.31.240.29 Message-ID: <4FB40BC1.1070604@raszuk.net> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:19:13 +0200 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "idr@ietf.org List" References: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 20:19:13 -0000 Hi, I support the adoption of this draft as WG document. However the new text authors added between -00 and -01 seems too restrictive to the original theme/direction. It says: ".. or the AS_PATH attribute of the flow specification is empty." That precludes injecting and honoring the flow routes even within the same administrative domain in the presence of confederations. I recommend that this limitation should be removed in next version. Regards, R. > Folks, > > We have received a request from the authors to adopt > draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document. Please send > your comments to the list. The deadline for comments is June 1, 2012 > at noon EDT. > > Thanks, > > --John _______________________________________________ Idr mailing > list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > From randy@psg.com Wed May 16 13:21:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A8421F86E2 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 13:21:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VuWDaoV-Kr9F for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 13:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A9721F8644 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 13:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SUkip-000IBn-RJ; Wed, 16 May 2012 20:21:24 +0000 Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:21:22 -1000 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: "John G. Scudder" In-Reply-To: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> References: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: idr wg Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 20:21:28 -0000 > We have received a request from the authors to adopt > draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document. have read lightly. agree it is a reasonable wg work item. of course, i like centralization about as much as i like large telco switches, nat444, .... but that does not detract from this being a perfectly reasonable work item. randy From keyupate@cisco.com Wed May 16 14:17:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606E821F8504 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:17:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RPcAJbLZT+6C for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975B721F85B9 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:17:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=keyupate@cisco.com; l=1774; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337203041; x=1338412641; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=u8zvsYgGOSbMNtoZtQ7vq0fxjaN+KHZrGgxuI7H0s78=; b=Kl8vYqDuhQ3EKrhXUisA0/WXbRwKixThL50LerZHOkE0KQ1wJNOEbfSL XQBi3pFoKTcqTV7abt93agbA6hzq7IJKHRU1grBoC4OGHvmCcd4v6QhbX uU1wifMnUDNNIV+60T2V63h50jhAA+OXC5GswN+IqLM3EE0oOHd3RWAez 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am0MAI8YtE+rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABEsmUEgR8CgQeCFQEBAQMBAQEBDwEnAgExEA0BCG0wAQEEARIih2cEAQubT59+BIsTO4UcA4hjjReOVyeBQoMJ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,604,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="45085648" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 May 2012 21:17:21 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4GLHLXX016631; Wed, 16 May 2012 21:17:21 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-239.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.105]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 16 May 2012 14:17:21 -0700 Received: from 128.107.163.90 ([128.107.163.90]) by xmb-sjc-239.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.105]) via Exchange Front-End Server email.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 16 May 2012 21:17:20 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:20:12 -0700 From: Keyur Patel To: , "idr@ietf.org List" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document Thread-Index: Ac0zqa2uy3+AM+aId0adsoJ2obNcqQ== In-Reply-To: <4FB40BC1.1070604@raszuk.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2012 21:17:21.0062 (UTC) FILETIME=[47CB7C60:01CD33A9] Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:17:22 -0000 One comment and one question on the draft. 1) I believe the rule should cover checks for AS4_PATH as well. 2) Section 6 from RFC5575 BGP implementations MUST also enforce that the AS_PATH attribute of a route received via the External Border Gateway Protocol (eBGP) contains the neighboring AS in the left-most position of the AS_PATH attribute. While this rule is optional in the BGP specification, it becomes necessary to enforce it for security reasons. Do we need to do a complete aspath check instead? Otherwise, a neighboring AS can inject a bogus flowspec route? Regards, Keyur On 5/16/12 1:19 PM, "Robert Raszuk" wrote: > Hi, > > I support the adoption of this draft as WG document. > > However the new text authors added between -00 and -01 seems too > restrictive to the original theme/direction. > > It says: > > ".. or the AS_PATH attribute of the flow specification is empty." > > That precludes injecting and honoring the flow routes even within the > same administrative domain in the presence of confederations. > > I recommend that this limitation should be removed in next version. > > Regards, > R. > > > >> Folks, >> >> We have received a request from the authors to adopt >> draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document. Please send >> your comments to the list. The deadline for comments is June 1, 2012 >> at noon EDT. >> >> Thanks, >> >> --John _______________________________________________ Idr mailing >> list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From robert@raszuk.net Wed May 16 14:24:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE5B21F874C for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.514 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZcNFnosSMpMf for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7CD21F872E for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 13376 invoked by uid 399); 16 May 2012 21:24:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.58?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.31.240.29) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 16 May 2012 21:24:20 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 83.31.240.29 Message-ID: <4FB41B06.5050709@raszuk.net> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 23:24:22 +0200 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keyur Patel References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:24:22 -0000 Hi Keyur, Actually you bring a good point. Going by section 6 would preclude reception of flow-spec routes across IX route servers as in those cases enforcing-first-as must be disabled on the IX client. Perhaps as you suggest we should replace section 6 of current 5575 with the full AS_PATH check regardless if enforce-first-as is in effect there or not. Comments ? Thx, R. > One comment and one question on the draft. > > 1) I believe the rule should cover checks for AS4_PATH as well. > > 2) Section 6 from RFC5575 > > > BGP implementations MUST also enforce that the AS_PATH attribute of a > route received via the External Border Gateway Protocol (eBGP) > contains the neighboring AS in the left-most position of the AS_PATH > attribute. While this rule is optional in the BGP specification, it > becomes necessary to enforce it for security reasons. > > > Do we need to do a complete aspath check instead? Otherwise, a neighboring > AS can inject a bogus flowspec route? > > Regards, > Keyur > > > On 5/16/12 1:19 PM, "Robert Raszuk" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I support the adoption of this draft as WG document. >> >> However the new text authors added between -00 and -01 seems too >> restrictive to the original theme/direction. >> >> It says: >> >> ".. or the AS_PATH attribute of the flow specification is empty." >> >> That precludes injecting and honoring the flow routes even within the >> same administrative domain in the presence of confederations. >> >> I recommend that this limitation should be removed in next version. >> >> Regards, >> R. From keyupate@cisco.com Wed May 16 14:43:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8968321F8745 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:43:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id thVIwIXdbVhh for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4F421F874A for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:43:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=keyupate@cisco.com; l=2090; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337204609; x=1338414209; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SN5h6sL+AfxVfaoAbRb1MQgEEJZDXgfhX/WaCq855C8=; b=URXoZmrA2BDqzQpQ9sFFsFpfRHzL0ZzTgsn1EXzOkq2h/LWoT03ofGwp 58x5zBaE0eThPSAWaucjbH8SyP9/RevuplvwErlojAb4VR17n6r9AVrim OAFw4wQjbVjiYRh0z43zaVCLjumohVSbVHYHvFUdm8+odFQ3HJGwgJt8w A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am0MADsftE+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABEsmUEgR8CgQeCFQEBAQMBEgEnAgE8BQ0BCBiBBQEBBA4FIodnBAGbZJ9/i06BeYMjA4hjjReOVyeBQoMJ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,604,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="44997332" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 May 2012 21:43:28 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4GLhSTd031598; Wed, 16 May 2012 21:43:28 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-239.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.105]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 16 May 2012 14:43:28 -0700 Received: from 128.107.163.90 ([128.107.163.90]) by xmb-sjc-239.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.105]) via Exchange Front-End Server email.cisco.com ([128.107.191.32]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 16 May 2012 21:43:27 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:46:20 -0700 From: Keyur Patel To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document Thread-Index: Ac0zrVRI1lFMYRqBeUyb6uRKGoljtw== In-Reply-To: <4FB41B06.5050709@raszuk.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2012 21:43:28.0417 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE02E110:01CD33AC] Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:43:29 -0000 Yep. In that case, the enforce-first-as text [RFC5575] could be relaxed and modified as well (We would need a uniform enforce-first-as policy between the flowspec and unicast afi/safis and that would work when comparing aspaths). Regards, Keyur On 5/16/12 2:24 PM, "Robert Raszuk" wrote: > Hi Keyur, > > Actually you bring a good point. Going by section 6 would preclude > reception of flow-spec routes across IX route servers as in those cases > enforcing-first-as must be disabled on the IX client. > > Perhaps as you suggest we should replace section 6 of current 5575 with > the full AS_PATH check regardless if enforce-first-as is in effect there > or not. > > Comments ? > > Thx, > R. > >> One comment and one question on the draft. >> >> 1) I believe the rule should cover checks for AS4_PATH as well. >> >> 2) Section 6 from RFC5575 >> >> >> BGP implementations MUST also enforce that the AS_PATH attribute of a >> route received via the External Border Gateway Protocol (eBGP) >> contains the neighboring AS in the left-most position of the AS_PATH >> attribute. While this rule is optional in the BGP specification, it >> becomes necessary to enforce it for security reasons. >> >> >> Do we need to do a complete aspath check instead? Otherwise, a neighboring >> AS can inject a bogus flowspec route? >> >> Regards, >> Keyur >> >> >> On 5/16/12 1:19 PM, "Robert Raszuk" wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I support the adoption of this draft as WG document. >>> >>> However the new text authors added between -00 and -01 seems too >>> restrictive to the original theme/direction. >>> >>> It says: >>> >>> ".. or the AS_PATH attribute of the flow specification is empty." >>> >>> That precludes injecting and honoring the flow routes even within the >>> same administrative domain in the presence of confederations. >>> >>> I recommend that this limitation should be removed in next version. >>> >>> Regards, >>> R. > > > From randy@psg.com Wed May 16 15:25:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3769E8022 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 15:25:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wwyaC2iy9MaL for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 15:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCC521F8796 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 15:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SUmeq-000IU6-FY; Wed, 16 May 2012 22:25:24 +0000 Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 12:25:23 -1000 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Keyur Patel In-Reply-To: References: <4FB40BC1.1070604@raszuk.net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" , robert@raszuk.net Subject: [Idr] draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:25:27 -0000 first, we are now discussing the draft, not whether it should be a wg item. so i have changed $subject > Do we need to do a complete aspath check instead? Otherwise, a > neighboring AS can inject a bogus flowspec route? this draft has wonderful text in the security section No new security issues are introduced by relaxing the validation procedure for IBGP learned flow specifications. With this proposal, the security characteristics of BGP flow specifications remain equivalent to the existing security properties of BGP unicast routing. Traffic flow specifications learned from IBGP peers are trusted, hence, its not required to validate that the originator of an intra-domain traffic flow specification matches the originator of the best-match unicast route for the flow destination prefix. Conversely, this proposal continues to enforce the validation procedure for EBGP learned traffic flow specifications. In this way, the security properties of RFC 5575 are maintained such that an EBGP peer cannot cause a denial-of-service attack by advertising an inter-domain flow specification for a destination prefix that it does not provide reachability information for. you gotta love the ref to 5575 which essentially says you have no protection, abandon all hope ye who enter randy From robert@raszuk.net Wed May 16 15:36:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8A411E8073 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 15:36:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wKJQbjCNzeCN for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 15:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072B011E8081 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 15:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 15496 invoked by uid 399); 16 May 2012 22:36:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.58?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.31.240.29) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 16 May 2012 22:36:32 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 83.31.240.29 Message-ID: <4FB42BF2.7030108@raszuk.net> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 00:36:34 +0200 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Bush References: <4FB40BC1.1070604@raszuk.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Keyur Patel , "idr@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:36:33 -0000 > you gotta love the ref to 5575 which essentially says you have no > protection, abandon all hope ye who enter For the record .. this is not what below quote says. No new security issues are introduced by relaxing the validation procedure for IBGP learned flow specifications. With this proposal, the security characteristics of BGP flow specifications remain equivalent to the existing security properties of BGP unicast routing. Traffic flow specifications learned from IBGP peers are trusted, hence, its not required to validate that the originator of an intra-domain traffic flow specification matches the originator of the best-match unicast route for the flow destination prefix. Conversely, this proposal continues to enforce the validation procedure for EBGP learned traffic flow specifications. In this way, the security properties of RFC 5575 are maintained such that an EBGP peer cannot cause a denial-of-service attack by advertising an inter-domain flow specification for a destination prefix that it does not provide reachability information for. Explanation: The RFC says that for IBGP even with relaxed validation you get what you have today .. provided that you know how to protect your AS in the first place. For EBGP the validation is in place and matching last AS as unicast route injector with flow spec is sufficient. The DDoS attack to a particular destination may have been detected just by your peer and it is WRONG to mandate full AS_PATH match. That would mean that flow-spec filter would need to be injected by the target and would consume bandwith of all transit ASes in the AS_PATH. This is wrong. I admit we did not consider RS @ IX when writing section 6. R. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri May 18 13:49:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E0121F861F; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:49:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.005 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.594, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zB46wKW-vxUE; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A3321F85F1; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:49:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120518204912.24065.8545.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:49:12 -0700 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-01.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 20:49:13 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of= the IETF. Title : BGP Custom Decision Process Author(s) : Alvaro Retana Russ White Filename : draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-01.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2012-05-18 The BGP specification defines a Decision Process for installation of routes into the Loc-RIB. This process takes into account an extensive series of path attributes, which can be manipulated to indicate preference for specific paths. It is cumbersome (if at all possible) for the end user to define policies that will select, after partial comparison, a path based on subjective local (domain and/or node) criteria. This document defines a new Extended Community, called the Cost Community, which may be used in tie breaking during the best path selection process. The end result is a local custom decision process. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-01.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon May 21 03:16:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C94621F85E6; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SILwPuHp9OZ8; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CAB21F85C2; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120521101650.28904.96894.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:50 -0700 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:16:51 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of= the IETF. Title : Assigned BGP extended communities Author(s) : Bruno Decraene Pierre Francois Filename : draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2012-05-21 This document defines an IANA registry in order to assign non- transitive extended communities from. These are similar to the existing well-known BGP communities defined in RFC 1997 but provide a control over inter-AS community advertisement as, per RFC RFC 4360, they are not transitive across Autonomous System boundaries. For that purpose, this document defines the use of the reserved Autonomous System number 0.65535 in the non-transitive generic four- octet AS specific extended community type. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-commun= ities-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communi= ties-03.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communiti= es/ From bruno.decraene@orange.com Mon May 21 03:23:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD37521F85E6 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:23:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AU270+ybamwe for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E837421F8525 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:23:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id B447A3243D4; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:23:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.183]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 9A0F94C017; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:23:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:23:42 +0200 From: To: "idr@ietf.org" , Jeffrey Haas Thread-Topic: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03.txt Thread-Index: AQHNNzrcp/IPrU0VOkyRj/gLy+5IkpbUB2JQ Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:23:41 +0000 Message-ID: <1022_1337595822_4FBA17AE_1022_891_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07C8AB@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <20120521101650.28904.96894.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120521101650.28904.96894.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.5] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.5.16.153315 Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:23:44 -0000 Hi all, As previously discussed on the list, version 03 introduces the following ma= in changes: > Changes -03=09 >=09=09=09=09 > o Use of AS number 0.65535 (0x0000FFFF) instead of AS 0. This is=09 > better aligned with RFC 1997 which also uses AS 65535.=09 >=09=09=09=09 > o Remove the transitive flavor of assigned extended communities.=09 > RFC 1997 well-known standard communities to be used instead. Diff2: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-idr-reserved-extende= d-communities-03.txt Regards, Bruno >-----Original Message----- >From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of inte= rnet- >drafts@ietf.org >Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 12:17 PM >To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >Cc: idr@ietf.org >Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03= .txt > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directo= ries. >This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the >IETF. > > Title : Assigned BGP extended communities > Author(s) : Bruno Decraene > Pierre Francois > Filename : draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03.txt > Pages : 6 > Date : 2012-05-21 > > This document defines an IANA registry in order to assign non- > transitive extended communities from. These are similar to the > existing well-known BGP communities defined in RFC 1997 but provide a > control over inter-AS community advertisement as, per RFC RFC 4360, > they are not transitive across Autonomous System boundaries. > > For that purpose, this document defines the use of the reserved > Autonomous System number 0.65535 in the non-transitive generic four- > octet AS specific extended community type. > > > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended- >communities-03.txt > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended- >communities-03.txt > >The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communit= ies/ > >_______________________________________________ >Idr mailing list >Idr@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete al= tere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for message= s that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From bruno.decraene@orange.com Mon May 21 03:30:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B54021F85CE for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:30:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_25=0.6, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8oFr8caYT2gx for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C3B21F855B for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:30:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 70A9E18C51B; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:30:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 586154C069; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:30:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:30:39 +0200 From: To: Jeffrey Haas Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities Thread-Index: AQHM/7xOUk/LfSUYiEW7EF/qoUxi3pbUeHbg Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:30:38 +0000 Message-ID: <1025_1337596239_4FBA194F_1025_1790_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07C8D3@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <24907_1329908761_4F44CC19_24907_5723_2_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A024146@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20120311192230.GC30627@slice> In-Reply-To: <20120311192230.GC30627@slice> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.5] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.5.16.153315 Cc: idr wg Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:30:42 -0000 Jeff, Many thanks for your review of the draft and your comments. In short, I agree with you and I have updated the draft as per your comment= s. I believe the new version (03) should address your comments. If this not th= e case, comments are welcomed. Thanks, Best regards, Bruno >From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org] >Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 8= :23 PM > >Bruno, > >On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:05:59AM +0000, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote: >> As a reminder, draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities currently >proposes to use the AS number O to get a global space of "generic four-oct= et AS >specific" extended community (as defined in draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcom= m- >generic-subtype) in order to be able to get IANA assigned extended communi= ties >values from. (i.e. the equivalent of formerly "well known" RFC 1997 >communities). >> >> Following some discussion on draft-ietf-idr-as0, another option is to us= e AS >number 0x0000FFFF instead of AS 0. This seems also more in line with RFC 1= 997 >which use the same AS number (0xFFFF) for the same purpose (IANA assigned >communities). > >I think using AS 0.65535 (as-dot notation) is probably reasonable given the >semantics you are looking for. > >After spending some additional time thinking about your draft, I believe >that the primary desired behavior is to add the ability to create >non-transitive well-known communities. Since transitive well-known >communities are easiest (and most backward-compatible at the moment) to >express as RFC 1997 4-byte communities I would make the following >suggestion: > >- Recommend that IANA set aside the 0.65535 4-byte AS name space using > draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype. >- Recommend that only non-transitive types are registered in the above > registry. >- Recommend that when a transitive well-known community is registered in t= he > IANA RFC 1997 community that, when appropriate, a non-transitive version > of the community be made similarly available in the new registry. > >The above captures the spirit of backward compatibility in >draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype: > >: Therefore, for backward compatibility with existing deployments and >: to avoid inconsistencies between standard communities and 4-octet >: extended communities, Autonomous Systems that use 2-octet Autonomous >: System numbers SHOULD use standard 2-octet communities as defined in >: RFC1997 rather than the 4-octet AS specific extended community as >: defined in this document. > >-- Jeff (not officially speaking for the other as4octet authors, but >probably capturing the spirit of our discussion) ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete al= tere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for message= s that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon May 21 03:38:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE7521F8617; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:38:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.504, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DK=1.009, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jLPseoIohgWz; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpsrv10.tdc.dk (smtpsrv10.tdc.dk [192.66.25.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45C821F860F; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail pickup service by smtpsrv10.tdc.dk with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:49:21 +0200 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by smtpsrv10.tdc.dk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.7381); Mon, 21 May 2012 12:28:34 +0200 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECA021F8609; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1337595415; bh=qSwDQjsK14ygBBaP7UyaN6A9ShZqrqDhaoRvuwYGqvQ=; h=MIME-Version:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:Cc:Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=UOVl9uRmJthmzceNyQcf32F75ngHYV8zTJllpR7IOrynN58Ih9efsMsU/74omCS0X pGFNAxVGGqrHirKrSYKl4V2PPpg0TWK33Am4m3MCKEgFkr6bz5NAQZNx31vPpmOOIG UmfbLPuLkenFVAEtwVW08ntNbOyeDw7X8MgSs0+0= X-Original-To: i-d-announce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: i-d-announce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C94621F85E6; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SILwPuHp9OZ8; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CAB21F85C2; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120521101650.28904.96894.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:50 -0700 X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 May 2012 10:28:34.0625 (UTC) FILETIME=[79E55310:01CD373C] Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:39:00 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Assigned BGP extended communities Author(s) : Bruno Decraene Pierre Francois Filename : draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2012-05-21 This document defines an IANA registry in order to assign non- transitive extended communities from. These are similar to the existing well-known BGP communities defined in RFC 1997 but provide a control over inter-AS community advertisement as, per RFC RFC 4360, they are not transitive across Autonomous System boundaries. For that purpose, this document defines the use of the reserved Autonomous System number 0.65535 in the non-transitive generic four- octet AS specific extended community type. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue May 22 18:50:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA2D21F869D; Tue, 22 May 2012 18:50:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Avpw7HROscG; Tue, 22 May 2012 18:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C2121F863D; Tue, 22 May 2012 18:50:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120523015056.31150.16496.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 18:50:56 -0700 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as0-05.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 01:50:57 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of= the IETF. Title : Codification of AS 0 processing. Author(s) : Warren Kumari Randy Bush Heather Schiller Keyur Patel Filename : draft-ietf-idr-as0-05.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2012-05-22 This document updates RFC 4271 and proscribes the use of AS 0 in BGP OPEN and AS_PATH / AS4_PATH BGP attribute. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-as0-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-as0-05.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-as0/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun May 27 18:57:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4C521F851E; Sun, 27 May 2012 18:57:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lC7ia2rKx84N; Sun, 27 May 2012 18:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17EB521F8516; Sun, 27 May 2012 18:57:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120528015734.23622.97506.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 18:57:34 -0700 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-03.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 01:57:34 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of= the IETF. Title : Best Practices for Advertisement of Multiple Paths in IB= GP Author(s) : Jim Uttaro Virginie Van den Schrieck Pierre Francois Roberto Fragassi Adam Simpson Pradosh Mohapatra Filename : draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-03.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2012-05-27 Add-Paths is a BGP enhancement that allows a BGP router to advertise multiple distinct paths for the same prefix/NLRI. This provides a number of potential benefits, including reduced routing churn, faster convergence and better loadsharing. This document provides recommendations to implementers of Add-Paths so that network operators have the tools needed to address their specific applications and to manage the scalability impact of Add- Paths. A router implementing Add-Paths may learn many paths for a prefix and must decide which of these to advertise to peers. This document analyses different algorithms for making this selection and provides recommendations based on the target application. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-03.= txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-03.t= xt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines/ From jgs@juniper.net Tue May 29 11:25:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92CDB21F8618; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:25:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a0b2hbRqRJfR; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og117.obsmtp.com (exprod7og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656D021F8619; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob117.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT8UUkSfWsO4C8RLLZXN7c00DBYakz3So@postini.com; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:25:21 PDT Received: from [172.16.13.202] (172.16.13.202) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:24:51 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: "John G. Scudder" Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 14:24:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> To: "idr@ietf.org List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "sidr@ietf.org list" Subject: [Idr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 18:25:22 -0000 IDR folks, BGPSEC (in the SIDR WG) includes a path attribute, = BGPSEC_Path_Signatures, that substantially overlaps the semantics of = AS_PATH. For reasons discussed in the forwarded note below, it proposes = that updates carrying BGPSEC_Path_Signatures should NOT carry AS_PATH.=20= Since this would represent a fairly major change to the protocol, I = wanted to make sure those not following SIDR were aware of it. Please = cross-post any comments to sidr@ietf.org. (See http://tools.ietf.org/html/ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-03 Section 3.) --John Begin forwarded message: > From: "John G. Scudder" > Subject: Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun > Date: May 29, 2012 2:21:33 PM EDT > To: Matt Lepinski > Cc: "sidr@ietf.org list" >=20 > On May 22, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Matt Lepinski wrote: >=20 >> Other than confeds are there any other potentially open issues = related to the removal of AS_Path? >=20 > (I think this just recapitulates what I said at the interim, but maybe = it's worth saying again for the list.) >=20 > Philosophically, the thing that makes me worry the most is that we're = cutting out one of BGP's fundamental elements and replacing it with one = which provides only a subset of its semantics. Specific things missing = include: >=20 > - Confederations. But we are discussing ways to fix this. > - Extensibility to include new segment types. In principle this is a = fairly serious omission, but one can argue that new segment types can't = be introduced in practice, since existing implementations will treat = them as fatal errors. >=20 > And actually, that's it for my list of specifics. I think we can check = off the "done, in principle" box for confeds. So the remaining issue is = extensibility. One may or may not find the "extensibility doesn't work = anyway" argument compelling, I'm not entirely sure *I* do. In any case, = I think this deserves a good airing before we commit. >=20 > The other issue is one Shane already brought up on this thread -- the = fact that some of the more egregious AS_PATH editing hacks that exist in = the wild may not be supportable in the AS_PATH-less new world order. = (Many of the less egregious ones seem to be OK with appropriate pcount = gyrations.) The pros and cons are a bit slippery here since even if we = continue to carry AS_PATH, if the BGPSEC_Path_Signatures attribute can't = represent the semantics of what's in that AS_PATH, then validation will = fail. But at least there's scope for a network operator on the receiving = end to tolerate the validation failure and use the route anyway, if = desired. In the case where there's no AS_PATH, the data are just gone = with no chance for appeal.=20 >=20 > It's also worth noting that leaving AS_PATH in would not be without = cost. In the cases where the content of AS_PATH is isomorphic to that of = BGPSEC_Path_Signatures, there's no problem -- but in those cases AS_PATH = clearly could have been left out. In the remaining cases, what is the = implementation supposed to do? It would be necessary to carefully = specify. The easiest cop-out would be to say that in all such cases, the = route fails validation. But I have a feeling that it's not that easy. = Leaving AS_PATH out reduces that particular maze of twisty passages, = although it replaces it with another: making sure it was really OK to = axe AS_PATH to begin with (i.e., the discussion above). >=20 > I'm going to forward this to IDR to ensure that those who aren't = following SIDR are aware there's a proposal to phase out AS_PATH in = favor of a simplified replacement in BGPSEC.=20 >=20 > --John > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From jgs@juniper.net Tue May 29 11:35:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE38011E8139 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:35:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zkE1dj7d5x1W for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og125.obsmtp.com (exprod7og125.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7260311E8121 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob125.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT8UW4X+ltHi8utYdGc1+RYBkdTs5MjmV@postini.com; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:35:13 PDT Received: from [172.16.13.202] (172.16.13.202) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:34:21 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: "John G. Scudder" In-Reply-To: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 14:34:20 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <67CB405A-6DD5-4733-8375-2272CEF0F666@juniper.net> References: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> To: "idr@ietf.org List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 18:35:16 -0000 So far I have seen replies to this from three people. This is not really = strong evidence of interest on the part of the WG. The comment period will end on Friday. --John On May 16, 2012, at 3:40 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: > Folks, >=20 > We have received a request from the authors to adopt = draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document. Please send = your comments to the list. The deadline for comments is June 1, 2012 at = noon EDT. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > --John From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Tue May 29 11:38:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8066211E8151 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:38:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uZh2ZhhiqqA1 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B808A11E8121 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q4TIcDJ8003696 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 29 May 2012 20:38:13 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.43]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Tue, 29 May 2012 20:38:13 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: "John G. Scudder" , "idr@ietf.org List" Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:38:12 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document Thread-Index: Ac09ydLekQJtKOvXQNCB+feOXF1azwAAFUPg Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D6702DF450E90@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> <67CB405A-6DD5-4733-8375-2272CEF0F666@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <67CB405A-6DD5-4733-8375-2272CEF0F666@juniper.net> Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 18:38:15 -0000 I am ok adopting this as a WG draft. -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John = G. Scudder Sent: dinsdag 29 mei 2012 20:34 To: idr@ietf.org List Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG = document So far I have seen replies to this from three people. This is not really st= rong evidence of interest on the part of the WG. The comment period will end on Friday. --John On May 16, 2012, at 3:40 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: > Folks, >=20 > We have received a request from the authors to adopt draft-djsmith-bgp-fl= owspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document. Please send your comments to the list= . The deadline for comments is June 1, 2012 at noon EDT. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > --John _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From jhaas@slice.pfrc.org Tue May 29 12:09:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91EE11E8149 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:09:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jgxy2rn4lMos for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F2E11E8118 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 834A1D007; Tue, 29 May 2012 15:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:09:07 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: "John G. Scudder" Message-ID: <20120529190907.GL4067@pfrc> References: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> <67CB405A-6DD5-4733-8375-2272CEF0F666@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <67CB405A-6DD5-4733-8375-2272CEF0F666@juniper.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:09:10 -0000 On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 02:34:20PM -0400, John G. Scudder wrote: > So far I have seen replies to this from three people. This is not really strong evidence of interest on the part of the WG. > > The comment period will end on Friday. I thought I had publicly responded in the affirmative. I support adoption of this as a WG item. Additionally, similar work is a pre-requisite for the geo-distribution draft I presented at the last IETF. -- Jeff From jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Tue May 29 12:41:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E1A11E809C for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:41:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KrXBlD1oU56b for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F362F11E8088 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q4TJfYJt018511; Tue, 29 May 2012 14:41:35 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.31]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Tue, 29 May 2012 15:41:30 -0400 From: Jeff Tantsura To: "John G. Scudder" , "idr@ietf.org List" Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:41:28 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document Thread-Index: Ac0zm8hMNHODiR7OQ0mLD5mlTCEYlwKNxg7w Message-ID: <0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF6218E3C4165@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:41:37 -0000 Hi, I support adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid as IDR WG document Regards, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John = G. Scudder Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:40 PM To: idr@ietf.org List Subject: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG docu= ment Folks, We have received a request from the authors to adopt draft-djsmith-bgp-flow= spec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document. Please send your comments to the list. = The deadline for comments is June 1, 2012 at noon EDT. Thanks, --John _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From warren@kumari.net Tue May 29 13:20:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E718611E80DC for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 13:20:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OCChsgzy4Gyh for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 13:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6470211E80C1 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 13:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dot.her.corp.google.com (unknown [72.14.227.1]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFC361B4177C; Tue, 29 May 2012 16:20:30 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: <0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF6218E3C4165@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:20:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> <0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF6218E3C4165@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> To: Jeff Tantsura X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:20:33 -0000 On May 29, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I support adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid as IDR WG = document Me too. This is a fun new game -- John issues a CFA and we all ignore it. After = the call closes and doesn't carry, we all popup and support it. This all = adds to the suspense, making for a more entertaining WG :-P W >=20 > Regards, > Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = John G. Scudder > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:40 PM > To: idr@ietf.org List > Subject: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG = document >=20 > Folks, >=20 > We have received a request from the authors to adopt = draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document. Please send = your comments to the list. The deadline for comments is June 1, 2012 at = noon EDT. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > --John > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >=20 From jgs@juniper.net Tue May 29 14:24:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F31E711E80F7; Tue, 29 May 2012 14:24:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hT3dc1vaQM1J; Tue, 29 May 2012 14:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og120.obsmtp.com (exprod7og120.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4069F11E80E3; Tue, 29 May 2012 14:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob120.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT8U+eGXnDVrs6tY7YqpZTRxayBXDDjwZ@postini.com; Tue, 29 May 2012 14:24:09 PDT Received: from [172.16.13.202] (172.16.13.202) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 29 May 2012 14:23:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: "John G. Scudder" In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:23:00 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> To: "sidr@ietf.org list" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 21:24:10 -0000 [Once more from proper account, sigh.] On May 29, 2012, at 2:24 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: > It's also worth noting that leaving AS_PATH in would not be without = cost. In the cases where the content of AS_PATH is isomorphic to that of = BGPSEC_Path_Signatures, there's no problem -- but in those cases AS_PATH = clearly could have been left out. In the remaining cases, what is the = implementation supposed to do? It would be necessary to carefully = specify. The easiest cop-out would be to say that in all such cases, the = route fails validation. But I have a feeling that it's not that easy. = Leaving AS_PATH out reduces that particular maze of twisty passages, = although it replaces it with another: making sure it was really OK to = axe AS_PATH to begin with (i.e., the discussion above). In an offline follow-up with Robert Raszuk, he pointed out that when one = applies a knob that results in an AS_PATH that can't be represented as a = BGPSEC_Path_Signatures [*] there is a third option, that of downgrading = from BGPSEC to unsigned BGP. That is to say, you convert the = BGPSEC_Path_Signatures to an AS_PATH, apply the knob to the AS_PATH, and = propagate the route with the AS_PATH and not the BGPSEC_Path_Signatures. = This is functionally equivalent to "in all such cases, the route fails = validation" but is more straightforward and seems to make a lot of = sense: everything that can be represented signed, should be. If you = insist on doing something that can't be signed, you can fall back to = unsigned BGP and hope for the best. This leaves me feeling a little more sanguine about the drop-the-AS_PATH = idea, although I still think some more attention to enumerating what = knobs will fall by the wayside is advisable.=20 --John [*] The name of this attribute makes for awkward prose since it has no = natural singular. How about calling it BGPSEC_Path_Signature instead? Or = Signed_Path or Signed_AS_Path sans brand name?= From randy@psg.com Tue May 29 16:45:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3CBF11E8160; Tue, 29 May 2012 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.479 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ngTKpxWjT8jH; Tue, 29 May 2012 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099E311E813B; Tue, 29 May 2012 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SZW6e-000CPA-Tx; Tue, 29 May 2012 23:45:41 +0000 Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:45:39 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: "John G. Scudder" In-Reply-To: References: <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" , "sidr@ietf.org list" Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 23:45:42 -0000 > This leaves me feeling a little more sanguine about the > drop-the-AS_PATH idea, although I still think some more attention to > enumerating what knobs will fall by the wayside is advisable. as folk keep inventing new knobs, one question would seem to be whether the knob inventors will understand and accept the trust/threat model implications of knobs which force downgrade to non-sec. randy From jakob.heitz@ericsson.com Tue May 29 17:01:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA6311E8177; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:01:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XM36mkDvyxOp; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACF111E8173; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q4U01mKS027359; Tue, 29 May 2012 19:01:50 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.31]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Tue, 29 May 2012 20:01:43 -0400 From: Jakob Heitz To: "John G. Scudder" , "sidr@ietf.org list" Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:01:42 -0400 Thread-Topic: [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] Thread-Index: Ac094TbBfl3MnBoUTvCChOkF5V/nqwAFG3+A Message-ID: <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA65FD8@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 00:01:54 -0000 AS_PATH is used to specify the path that the payload takes. Signed_AS_PATH is to verify the path that the update message takes. There is no reason they can not be different. Let the verifying function take both as input and let it decide based on policy. An AS could forward an update with a third party nexthop of a third party AS. The update message does not need to traverse the third party AS at all, but the payload will. The third party ASN might just be another ASN that the first party is using: it might be renumbering. The first party might like to include the third party ASN for loop detection. I don't have a specific feature in mind. Just "what if". On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:22 PM, John G. Scudder <> wrote: > On May 29, 2012, at 2:24 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: >=20 >> It's also worth noting that leaving AS_PATH in would not be without >> cost. In the cases where the content of AS_PATH is isomorphic to >> that of BGPSEC_Path_Signatures, there's no problem -- but in those >> cases AS_PATH clearly could have been left out. In the remaining >> cases, what is the implementation supposed to do? It would be >> necessary to carefully specify. The easiest cop-out would be to say >> that in all such cases, the route fails validation. But I have a >> feeling that it's not that easy. Leaving AS_PATH out reduces that >> particular maze of twisty passages, although it replaces it with >> another: making sure it was really OK to axe AS_PATH to begin with >> (i.e., the discussion above). =20 >=20 > In an offline follow-up with Robert Raszuk, he pointed out that when > one applies a knob that results in an AS_PATH that can't be > represented as a BGPSEC_Path_Signatures [*] there is a third option, > that of downgrading from BGPSEC to unsigned BGP. That is to say, you > convert the BGPSEC_Path_Signatures to an AS_PATH, apply the knob to > the AS_PATH, and propagate the route with the AS_PATH and not the > BGPSEC_Path_Signatures. This is functionally equivalent to "in all > such cases, the route fails validation" but is more straightforward > and seems to make a lot of sense: everything that can be represented > signed, should be. If you insist on doing something that can't be > signed, you can fall back to unsigned BGP and hope for the best. =20 >=20 > This leaves me feeling a little more sanguine about the > drop-the-AS_PATH idea, although I still think some more attention to > enumerating what knobs will fall by the wayside is advisable. =20 >=20 > --John >=20 > [*] The name of this attribute makes for awkward prose since it has > no natural singular. How about calling it BGPSEC_Path_Signature > instead? Or Signed_Path or Signed_AS_Path sans brand name --=20 Jakob Heitz.= From randy@psg.com Tue May 29 17:29:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A3F11E817D; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:29:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w0CEHGgf8-Zp; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C3C11E817B; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SZWmz-000CpK-3q; Wed, 30 May 2012 00:29:25 +0000 Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:29:23 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Jakob Heitz In-Reply-To: <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA65FD8@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA65FD8@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: idr wg , sidr wg list Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 00:29:27 -0000 > AS_PATH is used to specify the path that the payload takes. really? i thought it was a routing loop detection mechanism. it's been a while since folk wrote research papers describing schemes for routing by AS. i would phrase it as AS_PATH specifies the ASs through which the routing announcement has passed. > Signed_AS_PATH is to verify the path that the update message takes. and then this works really nicely. > There is no reason they can not be different. and here i thought that detecting that they differ, as an attack, is the core goal of as-path validation. randy From jakob.heitz@ericsson.com Tue May 29 17:47:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA2821F8687; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:47:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BFslkLacnUxU; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:47:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1454921F867B; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4U0lcsn028834 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 May 2012 19:47:38 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.31]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Tue, 29 May 2012 20:47:37 -0400 From: Jakob Heitz To: Randy Bush Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:47:36 -0400 Thread-Topic: [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] Thread-Index: Ac09+0eISep1YF9nT8a9bfJn5+bX0AAAiVEw Message-ID: <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA66011@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA65FD8@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: idr wg , sidr wg list Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 00:47:44 -0000 On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 5:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> AS_PATH is used to specify the path that the payload takes. >=20 > really? i thought it was a routing loop detection mechanism. > it's been a while since folk wrote research papers describing > schemes for routing by AS. >=20 > i would phrase it as >=20 > AS_PATH specifies the ASs through which the routing announcement has > passed. >=20 >> Signed_AS_PATH is to verify the path that the update message takes. >=20 > and then this works really nicely. >=20 >> There is no reason they can not be different. >=20 > and here i thought that detecting that they differ, as an attack, is > the core goal of as-path validation. I thought it was to prevent an AS from announcing an update that it was not authorised to. An entirely different thing. >=20 > randy --=20 Jakob Heitz.= From randy@psg.com Tue May 29 17:52:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480B721F86B7; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:52:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.493 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94F1mtelqgFE; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA17F21F86B6; Tue, 29 May 2012 17:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SZX8w-000D4r-Fj; Wed, 30 May 2012 00:52:06 +0000 Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:52:05 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Jakob Heitz In-Reply-To: <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA66011@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA65FD8@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA66011@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: idr wg , sidr wg list Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 00:52:07 -0000 >> and here i thought that detecting that they differ, as an attack, is >> the core goal of as-path validation. > I thought it was to prevent an AS from announcing an update that it > was not authorised to. nope. that is rpki-based origin validation. we are now talking about as-path validation. from a note to some gov folk: To be clear, as people keep calling BGP security 'RPKI' In the current taxonomy, there are three pieces, the RPKI, RPKI-based origin validation, and then path validation. RPKI is the X.509 based hierarchy with is congruent with the internet IP address allocation administration, the IANA, RIRS, ISPs, ... It is the substrate on which the next two are based. It is currently deployed in four of the five administrative regions, ARIN in North America being the sad and embarrassing exception. RPKI-based origin validation uses some of the RPKI data to allow a router to verify that the autonomous system announcing an IP address prefix is in fact authorized to do so. This is not crypto checked so can be violated. But it prevents the vast majority of accidental 'hijackings' on the internet today, e.g. the famous Pakastani accidental announcement of YouTube's address space. RPKI-based origin validation is in shipping code from Cisco, and will be shipping by Juniper soon. Path validation uses the full crypto information of the RPKI to make up for the embarrassing mistake that, like much of the internet BGP was designed with no thought to securing the BGP protocol itself from being gamed/violated. It allows a receiver of a BGP announcement to formally cryptographically validate that the originating autonomous system was truely authorized to announce the IP address prefix, and that the systems through which the announcement passed were indeed those which the sender/forwarder at each hop intended. Sorry to drone on, but these three really need to be differentiated. randy From jakob.heitz@ericsson.com Tue May 29 18:06:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51BD11E8127; Tue, 29 May 2012 18:06:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r5qunIY-Upin; Tue, 29 May 2012 18:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549B121F8712; Tue, 29 May 2012 18:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4U161u5029472 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 May 2012 20:06:01 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.31]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:06:01 -0400 From: Jakob Heitz To: Randy Bush Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 21:05:59 -0400 Thread-Topic: [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] Thread-Index: Ac09/nKS5R3/ljnoQHOQ4+4cJ6S2HAAAG7Fg Message-ID: <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA66014@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA65FD8@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA66011@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: idr wg , sidr wg list Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 01:06:03 -0000 On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 5:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> and here i thought that detecting that they differ, as an attack, is >>> the core goal of as-path validation. >> I thought it was to prevent an AS from announcing an update that it >> was not authorised to. >=20 > nope. that is rpki-based origin validation. we are now talking about > as-path validation. >=20 > from a note to some gov folk: >=20 > To be clear, as people keep calling BGP security 'RPKI' >=20 > In the current taxonomy, there are three pieces, the RPKI, RPKI-based > origin validation, and then path validation. >=20 > RPKI is the X.509 based hierarchy with is congruent with the internet > IP address allocation administration, the IANA, RIRS, ISPs, ... It > is the substrate on which the next two are based. It is currently > deployed in four of the five administrative regions, ARIN in North > America being the sad and embarrassing exception. >=20 > RPKI-based origin validation uses some of the RPKI data to allow a > router to verify that the autonomous system announcing an IP address > prefix is in fact authorized to do so. This is not crypto checked so > can be violated. But it prevents the vast majority of accidental > 'hijackings' on the internet today, e.g. the famous Pakastani > accidental announcement of YouTube's address space. RPKI-based > origin validation=20 > is in shipping code from Cisco, and will be shipping by Juniper soon. >=20 > Path validation uses the full crypto information of the RPKI to make > up for the embarrassing mistake that, like much of the internet BGP > was designed with no thought to securing the BGP protocol itself from > being gamed/violated. It allows a receiver of a BGP announcement to > formally cryptographically validate that the originating autonomous > system was truely authorized to announce the IP address prefix, and > that the=20 > systems through which the announcement passed were indeed those which > the sender/forwarder at each hop intended. >=20 > Sorry to drone on, but these three really need to be differentiated. >=20 > randy Apology accepted. Note, I said "announcing", not "originating". Here is my view of the difference: Origin validation does not stop anyone from announcing an update. It only requires the first AS in that update to be the owner of the prefix. Path validation prevents anyone from announcing an update unless it was sent to them by an authorised AS. And they are authorised, because it was sent to them by an authorised AS and so on, back to the authorised originator. --=20 Jakob Heitz.= From robert@raszuk.net Wed May 30 05:01:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E47721F86FE for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 05:01:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WGDJzHc+CgnB for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 05:01:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9BE21F86CE for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 05:01:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22326 invoked by uid 399); 30 May 2012 12:01:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.91?) (pbs:m42@mojaklasa.info@83.31.219.206) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 30 May 2012 12:01:38 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 83.31.219.206 Message-ID: <4FC60C21.6010108@raszuk.net> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:01:37 +0200 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Bush References: <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" , "John G. Scudder" , "sidr@ietf.org list" Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:01:40 -0000 Let's observe that mangling with AS_PATH is usually done for a reason .. to achieve reachability to some set of prefixes which otherwise would be dropped. So with this in mind a better question to think about from customer perspective is to choose either: - unsecure but reachable Internet destinations - secure Internet routing but unreachable destinations Rgs, R. PS. I believe I have a solution to address both sides. Let me write it up and share in a week or two. >> This leaves me feeling a little more sanguine about the >> drop-the-AS_PATH idea, although I still think some more attention to >> enumerating what knobs will fall by the wayside is advisable. > > as folk keep inventing new knobs, one question would seem to be whether > the knob inventors will understand and accept the trust/threat model > implications of knobs which force downgrade to non-sec. > > randy > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > From kent@bbn.com Wed May 30 08:41:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB8221F85AD; Wed, 30 May 2012 08:41:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HeHm2pgkkd3h; Wed, 30 May 2012 08:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E775121F8438; Wed, 30 May 2012 08:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp89-089-114.bbn.com ([128.89.89.114]:49193) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SZl0s-000HOF-Ee; Wed, 30 May 2012 11:40:42 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA65FD8@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se > <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213921BFA66011@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se > Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:06:57 -0400 To: Randy Bush From: Stephen Kent Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Cc: idr wg , sidr wg list Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:41:21 -0000 Randy, Thanks for the nicely articulated description of these elements of routing security work in SIDR. Steve From jgs@juniper.net Wed May 30 13:53:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216DE11E809C; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XGb4b4cdFtt3; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og117.obsmtp.com (exprod7og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657C821F874F; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob117.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT8aIzKxAs2onG6tCgi6IWl2WpnzfUqpn@postini.com; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:36 PDT Received: from [172.16.13.202] (172.16.13.202) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:52:20 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: "John G. Scudder" In-Reply-To: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F625F12333@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:52:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60F70A267@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F625F0975D@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <4FBBB6D1.9000008@bbn.com> <4FBC0936.7000905@bbn.com>, <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F625F12333@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> To: "Murphy, Sandra" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" , Matt Lepinski , "sidr@ietf.org list" Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 20:53:37 -0000 [added IDR to cc] On May 30, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote: ... > About extensibility - as you say, any new segment type not built into = implementations would result in fatal errors. So any new segment type = would need to be built into implementations before use. The question = then becomes - can the signature attributes also be augmented at the = same time to deal with the new segment types? ... > So the AS_PATH extensibility could be maintained in the security = protections - as long as the new extension is "protectable". OK, as long as it's practical to extend the BGPSEC_Path_Signatures = attribute. I confess to not having given this much thought but it = doesn't appear to be as easily extensible as AS_PATH, because the latter = has a TLV structure and the former doesn't. I guess your answer is that = since AS_PATH extensions are in practice a big deal, you'll just = introduce a new, incompatible format of BGPSEC_Path_Signatures to match? = If this is the plan, BGPSEC_Path_Signatures should include a version = number, since it would be a little rude to consume another code point = from the one-byte BGP path attribute code point space for this purpose. = Also, for generality you'll need to think about whether you want to be = able to support different subsets of extensions -- this is easy in a = TLV-encoded attribute but hard if all you've got is a version number. = (Another answer might be that Additional_info will serve as the = extensibility placeholder, but if so its length field is too small.) ... > I am quite sure I don't know the complete list of AS_PATH knobs! Nor do I, from memory. But we probably should plan to enumerate a list = of them so that we can categorize them as "we can do this", "this is = formally an attack and therefore will never be supported", or "other", = and then iterate on "other". > But some of those I do know are hacks that would allow attacks as = well. The fact that the security protections prohibit the attacks is a = good thing. If there's a way to identify good, not evil, uses, then we = can design for that. But in cases where there's no real way to = distinguish the good from the evil, we're in a hard place. Shoot a hole = in the protection to allow the hack or prohibit the hack. Right, and agreed (see "formally an attack" above). But to repeat my = further point, if the AS_PATH is present (even if not secured): "at = least there's scope for a network operator on the receiving end to = tolerate the validation failure and use the route anyway, if desired. In = the case where there's no AS_PATH, the data are just gone with no chance = for appeal." --John= From kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov Wed May 30 17:02:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CDB11E80D5; Wed, 30 May 2012 17:02:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0IUWDScthBRv; Wed, 30 May 2012 17:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wsget2.nist.gov (wsget2.nist.gov [129.6.13.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34C011E80AD; Wed, 30 May 2012 17:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.18.96) by wsget2.nist.gov (129.6.13.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 30 May 2012 20:02:27 -0400 Received: from MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov ([fe80::d479:3188:aec0:cb66]) by WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov ([129.6.18.96]) with mapi; Wed, 30 May 2012 20:02:44 -0400 From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi" To: "John G. Scudder" , "Murphy, Sandra" Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 20:02:44 -0400 Thread-Topic: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun Thread-Index: Ac0+phsg3Zu8y1qPTlqxOc9z76et7QACu8rw Message-ID: References: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60F70A267@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F625F0975D@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <4FBBB6D1.9000008@bbn.com> <4FBC0936.7000905@bbn.com>, <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F625F12333@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" , "sidr@ietf.org list" Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 00:02:46 -0000 > >Right, and agreed (see "formally an attack" above). But to repeat my further >point, if the AS_PATH is present (even if not secured): "at least there's scope for a >network operator on the receiving end to tolerate the validation failure and use >the route anyway, if desired. In the case where there's no AS_PATH, the data are >just gone with no chance for appeal." > John, I do not agree that in the event of "validation failure" the route becomes unusable in BGPSEC as currently specified. The operator has a choice to consider and select a route as best path (or as add-path) even if the update failed validation or validation was deferred. (Note: Validation may not be deferred sometimes due to processor overload, or known RPKI staleness, etc.) You seem to be suggesting that when there is "validation failure", then "BGPSEC_Path_Signatures" as whole is unusable. That is not the case. "BGPSEC_Path_Signatures" is just a name given to the outer shell of the BGPSEC update. (BGPSEC need not give the outer shell any name at all.) Within it, we have these segments: Secure_Path, Sig_Block, and Additional_Info. Each of these segments has its own proper semantics. Even if the Sig_Block were to have an invalid signature, the Secure_Path segment is still usable as it provides the AS path info. If the operator chose an _Invalid_ update for lack of a better choice, then it is still the Secure_Path that provides the AS path info, and also the update SHOULD be signed and propagated to other BGPSEC peers. Also, if a specific eBGP neighbor is a non-bgpsec speaker, then the selected BGPSEC update (valid or invalid) is converted to a regular BGP-4 update wherein the AS_PATH attribute is constructed from the Secure_Path. So validation failure in BGPSEC does not mean that "the data are just gone." In fact, for clarity sake I would like to suggest that in the spec we consider Secure_Path, Sig_Block, and Additional_Info as distinct BGPSEC attributes. (That is to say we should not lump them together as one attribute.) Sriram From jgs@juniper.net Thu May 31 10:13:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8BDA21F8620 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:13:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QLLL6i7qMSOZ for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC4821F85BB for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT8emp17Ht5Zqy7KNiDOYq+B+J4hrcdJT@postini.com; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:13:14 PDT Received: from [172.16.13.205] (172.16.13.205) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:10:13 -0700 From: John Scudder Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:10:12 -0400 Message-ID: To: "idr@ietf.org List" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: [Idr] Adoption of draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-01 as IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:13:14 -0000 Folks, We have received a request from the authors to adopt = draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-01 as an IDR WG document. Please send = your comments to the list. The deadline for comments is June 15, 2012 = at noon EDT. Thanks, --John From jgs@juniper.net Thu May 31 10:35:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA7D11E808C; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:35:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id blAzuu0y-Oni; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E4F11E8081; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT8er3sILfXaiRdUV/u1457AqwzHDzCt0@postini.com; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:35:34 PDT Received: from [172.16.13.205] (172.16.13.205) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:31:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: "John G. Scudder" In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:31:29 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <5F5F8CF8-061C-47C9-942C-7908963EF347@juniper.net> References: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60F70A267@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F625F0975D@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <4FBBB6D1.9000008@bbn.com> <4FBC0936.7000905@bbn.com>, <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F625F12333@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> To: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" , "Murphy, Sandra" , "sidr@ietf.org list" Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:35:35 -0000 On May 30, 2012, at 8:02 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote: >>=20 >> Right, and agreed (see "formally an attack" above). But to repeat my = further >> point, if the AS_PATH is present (even if not secured): "at least = there's scope for a >> network operator on the receiving end to tolerate the validation = failure and use >> the route anyway, if desired. In the case where there's no AS_PATH, = the data are >> just gone with no chance for appeal." >>=20 >=20 > John, >=20 > I do not agree that in the event of "validation failure" the route = becomes unusable > in BGPSEC as currently specified. That's not what I meant. My point was that a feature may be applied that = wants to change the AS_PATH in a way that can't be represented in the = BGPSEC_Path_Signatures. In other words, your later statement: > the Secure_Path segment is still usable as it provides the AS path = info. is not correct in all cases. Likewise, to this statement: > So validation failure in BGPSEC does not mean that "the data are just = gone." My point is not that validation failure causes this. It's that absent = AS_PATH, a semantically non-representable AS_PATH will be lost if forced = through BGPSEC_Path_Signatures. To reiterate, the options to address the case where a feature wants to = produce output that can't be represented in BGPSEC_Path_Signatures are: - Don't solve it. Effectively forbid any such feature. - Carry both AS_PATH and BGPSEC_Path_Signatures in every update. Rules = for reconciliation would be required. - Downgrade BGPSEC update to BGP update.=20 - Extend BGPSEC_Path_Signatures format to be able to represent the = needed feature. (As Sandy noted, this only makes sense insofar as the = feature isn't formally an attack, so this option is incomplete.) The validation failure I spoke of is a potential *consequence* of the = middle two options above, and as you say, the operator can then decide = what to do. --John= From jgs@juniper.net Thu May 31 10:39:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2B011E80CA; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:39:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GnMp51PZHnvM; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og115.obsmtp.com (exprod7og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.217]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B823311E8081; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob115.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT8es1qOzdQdy76ZqxQkWTgGZDaTnCIhw@postini.com; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:39:34 PDT Received: from [172.16.13.205] (172.16.13.205) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:37:58 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) From: "John G. Scudder" In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:37:57 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <5BA9D6DE-BE0E-4922-9E09-7B85BD6F9342@juniper.net> To: "idr@ietf.org List" , "sidr@ietf.org list" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: Re: [Idr] [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:39:41 -0000 [Sigh. Again with the right source email address.] Missed one: On May 29, 2012, at 2:24 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: >> Philosophically, the thing that makes me worry the most is that we're = cutting out one of BGP's fundamental elements and replacing it with one = which provides only a subset of its semantics. Specific things missing = include: >>=20 >> - Confederations. But we are discussing ways to fix this. >> - Extensibility to include new segment types. In principle this is a = fairly serious omission, but one can argue that new segment types can't = be introduced in practice, since existing implementations will treat = them as fatal errors. - AS_SETs. SIDR has decided not to support these, and IDR has published = RFC 6472 / BCP 172 "Recommendation for Not Using AS_SET and = AS_CONFED_SET in BGP". Nonetheless, they remain part of the protocol and = have not (yet) been formally deprecated, so I mention them for = completeness. --John= From shsethur@cisco.com Thu May 31 11:17:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C61411E80F0 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 11:17:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vg8yfhw2KDXR for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 11:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C833611E809F for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 11:17:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shsethur@cisco.com; l=939; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1338488236; x=1339697836; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=NExbXk7riph950B6c6Vp3lXkoFgXTQb0Einnc8kT5Ac=; b=lhRfn6nTJfgsU9Us6fOF9xCXG8d1PeqcQ9UfbQJVCBVWblgF8xocgme0 6dgA1fpwTWfOCPhsDp1zd0YcWDvdOHgRiodf5BOoOuZJ+LNnz9j4ww5lL mBk0ewAvQyCwJBS7rDegP1l86aTKDhWsDxNlSZQXf0PEQjrp0dOfFeMFU M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAP+0x0+rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABEtBSBB4IYAQEBBAEBAQ8BHQo0FwQCAQgRBAEBAQoGFwEGASYfCQgBAQQBEggah2gBC5khn0kEixGEZmADiECaZYFmgwA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,693,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="44576909" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2012 18:17:16 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4VIHFDk018459; Thu, 31 May 2012 18:17:16 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-227.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.43]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 31 May 2012 11:17:15 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:17:14 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <67CB405A-6DD5-4733-8375-2272CEF0F666@juniper.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WGdocument Thread-Index: Ac09ydAsSHlClraNTYSqZQMsZ0HWCABj7LhQ References: <3BBED7A5-C064-4D80-B135-CC9B678BAF4D@juniper.net> <67CB405A-6DD5-4733-8375-2272CEF0F666@juniper.net> From: "Shyam Sethuram (shsethur)" To: "John G. Scudder" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 May 2012 18:17:15.0892 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B9BA340:01CD3F59] Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WGdocument X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:17:17 -0000 +Support thanks--shyam >-----Original Message----- >From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John G. Scudder >Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:34 AM >To: idr@ietf.org List >Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WGdocument > >So far I have seen replies to this from three people. This is not really strong evidence of >interest on the part of the WG. > >The comment period will end on Friday. > >--John > >On May 16, 2012, at 3:40 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> We have received a request from the authors to adopt draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as >an IDR WG document. Please send your comments to the list. The deadline for comments >is June 1, 2012 at noon EDT. >> >> Thanks, >> >> --John > >_______________________________________________ >Idr mailing list >Idr@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr