IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help-03.txt

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Tue, 26 November 2013 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E68F1ADF9A for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:24:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.792
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i_7flJp-F1JK for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from so-mailgw.apnic.net (so-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:a:3::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 081DF1ADF93 for <grow@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:24:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to: date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer: return-path; bh=Tf7U8+9eWJ/RvgByD9ClTardZGkogG0IR4WxMm0Dsdw=; b=rujfmpNr17+p/hhufM64QNr72dwpXk4EDu76Gf49UXU6rxlf3GfRlX6KBnl983TjFQvMBM25I9cZ7 FDRz3sZHFE+BUyvHSUUxNu0ulFjAXNrF2X+MD0tN9TLCx6xCeGPsUXigtyPgsHmR1WnfS/oi6HEKbF as8+7UYWRq+paRUQ=
Received: from NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (unknown [203.119.93.247]) by so-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:24:43 +1000 (EST)
Received: from IAMDA2.org.apnic.net (2001:dd8:a:852::21) by NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (2001:dd8:9:802::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:24:43 +1000
Received: from dhcp84.potaroo.net (203.119.101.249) by IAMDA2.org.apnic.net (203.119.111.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.438.0; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:24:42 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaa5-f4tmPZXSvZXDn640wm6VkfbYqS5qDBdZDVBZuJkXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:24:47 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <F19C0DE3-FC3C-432B-B2E0-BF14F45DFA54@apnic.net>
References: <20131118230146.22016.28407.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <77143901-5DA3-4937-8162-509B62A61594@apnic.net> <CAL9jLabPjvXaAUaSEyQXdFvSDPZ_bJX4rjGxOGd0BqYhQcQYdg@mail.gmail.com> <FDFB46E9-ECD0-4CFF-A846-2E6FE9F8C9D7@apnic.net> <CAL9jLaaFszKUR0oZe-3gxR8JeFyTAjoe1BmD2ixXnjhvU7Mv5A@mail.gmail.com> <3EEF9354-766C-4687-8DD4-55759B9826CB@apnic.net> <CAL9jLaaEGpJ-B75EAOCCJDG14B8ZWJQ2FK7=AgXt1WQe=5geiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaa5-f4tmPZXSvZXDn640wm6VkfbYqS5qDBdZDVBZuJkXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help-03.txt
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:24:48 -0000

On 27 Nov 2013, at 7:54 am, Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Christopher Morrow
> <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As I read your thoughts I am left with the impression that you hold the
>>> view that IDR that inherited the "requirements  for securing the routing
>>> system" task. Have I got this right?
>>> 
>> 
>> Your sentence didn't parse for me, one or more words are incorrect,
>> somewhere around:
>>  "view that IDR that inherited"
>> 
>> I believe the path set forth by routing and ops ADs was the 3-4 step
>> program above... is that your question?
> 
> Geoff, did I get your question's sense correct or not?

I reviewed the mailing lists of all three WGs from November last year, when this came up.
and I was searching for a proposed methodology of defining requirements, proposing mechanisms
and standardising one of more candidate technologies relating to the issue of path
control of the propagation of BGP announcements in order to allow BGP speakers
to detect unintended announcements. My search of the list archives was unsuccessful.

As I seem to be the only one interested in an answer, I give up.

geoff


(Of course the net value of the entire effort in "securing" a routing protocol that still cannot
discriminate between intended routing announcements and all forms of routing lies is in
itself another interesting question, but maybe that's best answered by those folk who will,
or will not, turn on this particular set of routing control knobs in their routers.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email