[GROW] GROW IETF 101 minutes

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

Below are the minutes of the GROW meeting at IETF 101.

I'd like to thank Massimiliano Stucchi and Nathalie Trenaman effusively
for their minute taking.

Kind regards,

Job

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-101-grow/

################
Presentation: BMP - Paolo Lucente
( draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-01.txt and
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-01.txt)
################

Randy Bush highlighted a problem in the BMP implementation from vendors.
He's worried about adding more parts to it. Additionally, he mentioned
that he likes the drafts.

Ruediger Volk pointed out that there are gaps in the overall picture: he
feels there are information that are dropped between RIB-in and the
post-policy that could be of interest for him. It would be interesting to
know which routes have been dropped, and which one of the policy decisions
affected it. For certain vendors a code point could be added to send
all this data to central logging for analysis.

Paolo mentioned that he's done work on pre- and post-policies. He feels the
issue to be out of scope for the moment and for the specific draft.

Job proposed to add another draft to address this issue.

Paolo is concerned that trying to find a common language across vendors to
describe actions and policies could be hard.

Ruediger suggested using exit codes that could be scripted.

Jeff Haas mentioned that not everything could be standardised. He suggested
that there could be a way to allow operators to put their own messages
in the
description.

There were no more questions nor comments.

#################
Presentation: Randy Bush - draft-ymbk-grow-wkc-behavior-00
#################

Ruediger asked about the well-known communities, and the fact that in
the past it was deemed not possible to add more, but recently it
happened. In the end the question pointed towards asking "what is a
well-known community?"

Ruediger also suggested to add a "delete all" command to remove all the
communities from a configuration

Jeff Haas commented that IANA should be asked about the meaning of
well-known communities, and that the behaviour of vendors depends on how
IANA handled it at the beginning.

Randy Bush asked the room if considering this problem a bug is the right
way, or if removing the set command could be a problem for many
implementors.

John Scudder mentioned that he just read the draft and suggested to go ahead
with what is there and not add anything, which is what the draft says.

Ruediger suggested to ask the vendors for approriate delete commands to be
used.

There were no more questions nor comments.

###############
Presentation: Job Snijders - IRR vs RPKI parity regarding AS-SETs
###############

George Michaelson suggested to not modify RPKI, but that something is being
added.

He added that the critical moment is about who signs and what should be
in the certificates that are being produced.

Ruediger Volk said that it's correct to point out that AS-Sets are being
used but do not appear in RPKI, but do in RPSL. Good idea to make
progress, but identifying gaps in functionality is important, so they
can be filled. He pointed out, though, that there's a difference between
authorisation and policy documentation. RPKI provides clear
authorisation. RPSL was policy documentation. Using the IRR as an
authorisation mechanism and trying to fix it while we already have an
authorisation system could be wrong.  AS-Sets can not have
authorisation, and they contain wrong data most of the time. This
problem needs to be fixed.

Jeff Haas pointed out that Sets are nice but they belong in RPSL. Sets
are useful for policies, but probably it is not as needed as we're
thinking.  The idea resembles RPSL export statements.

Job replied that if only we can mimic AS-Sets in RPKI, that can be useful.

Jeff replied that he agrees they can be useful.

Randy Bush asked about how recursion would work, and what authority he
would be asserting over those objects. He also criticised the type of
approach.

Ruediger Volk commented about how AS-Sets could be registered, and
mentioned that they could be created in any IRR and be looked up in each
one of them. It would be nice to find a way to fix this issue.

The best way would be to use adjacency-assertions, but this is
impractical to be applied in real life.

Doug Montgomery Commented aobut Authorisation in ROAs, and how this is
not enforced as Ruediger was explaining.

The line was cut, as there was no more time for comments or questions.

###############
Presentation: Alexander Azimov - uRPF Reboot
###############

Randy Bush commented that implementing BCP38 would be easier than
implementing
what Alexander is suggesting.

Alexander commented that this is just to guarantee spoofed traffic will not
leave the customer network.

Ruediger Volk commented that their customers would not be happy about
implementing this solution.

Job Snijders commented that using graceful shutdown is a nice idea, and
added
that finding equipment that could do uRPF efficiently is quite hard. Until
this problem is solved, he would not even consider uRPF at all.

Warren Kumari asked about how this implementation is done, and how
local-preference is used in achieving the desired behaviour.

There was a discussion among Randy Bush and Warren Kumari about the
difference
between No-export and Graceful Shutdown.

Ruediger Volk suggested using also the no-export- community instead.

Doug Montgomery asked clarification about how no-export is used in this
scenario, and Alexander clarified that this draft applies mainly to stub
networks.

Doug also asked if there's the assumption that uRPF only applies to stub
networks, and that transit networks should not be doing it.

The line was cut, and Job suggested to bring more questions to the mailing
list.