Re: [GROW] RouteLeaks - problem or not?

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

Apologies for the extra spam, there was a topic point I missed in this
mail, see below please.

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Christopher Morrow
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> GROW Folks,
> The SIDR working group is working on security for origination and path
> data related to BGP routes. There has been a note (a few) about SIDR's
> effect(s) or not on 'route leaks'. There have even been a few notes on
> 'what is a route leak'. To date there is a draft which discusses route
> leaks:
>   <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foo-sidr-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help-02>
>
> where the authors have attempted to describe one (or many possible)
> situations which are called 'route leaks'. They also attempt to
> outline security issues which are follow-on effects of the situation
> described.
>

Additionally there were several drafts written by Brian Dickson aiming
to provide some definitions about route-leaks and some direction for a
solution, they are:
  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-def-03>
  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-solns-01>
  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-reqts-02>

These are probably best read in reverse numerical order:
   definition
   requirements
   solution

I believe the author aimed to talk about this in a GROW meeting, or on
the GROW list, I have not seen him pipe up as of yet to that end,
however.

-chris

> SIDR attempted to look at route-leaks and came up a bit stymied, they
> asked IDR for some assistance with the issue, IDR pushed back to GROW
> to decide:
>   1) What is a 'route leak' (perhaps the above draft identifies one
> examplar to be used in that definition)
>   2) Are 'route leaks' a problem that Operations folks care about
>   3) Should IDR (or the IETF proper) address 'route leaks' with some
> form(s) of fix action.
>
> The end result of the above 3 steps is to push back into IDR one of
> two action requests:
>   1) "Yes, route leaks are a problem, please fix them."
>      or
>   2) "No, route leaks are not a problem, take no action."
>
> If #1 above is the answer, and IDR decides that changes to the BGP
> protocol are warranted (or are a possible solution to the problem)
> then SIDR has agreed to do what they can to 'secure' the bits
> added/changed/used in that endeavor.
>
> Could we have some discussion on-list about this problem, and some
> discussion about whether or not the draft referenced above fits the
> definition we would like to use for 'route leak'? I would also like
> the authors of the draft to decide where they would like to take their
> draft:
>    1) SIDR
>    2) IDR
>    3) GROW
>    4) other
>
> Thanks!
> -Chris
> (co-chair 1:2 of grow, and 1:3 in sidr)