Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help

[Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>]

[top post only]

Good point Sandy, this was definitely meant to serve as more of a motivation, illustrating a real problem that smart people should focus on because it happens all the time and some real heavy solutions being consider wholly ignore it.  Quibbling about “definitions” that satisfy those in the know (some of which are heavily invested in solutions that don’t consider this an issue) at this stage is likely futile, and I’d at least be happy just publishing this as a “motivational” and if it only collects dust, so be it..

-danny


On May 16, 2014, at 11:59 PM, Sandra Murphy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Sort of a late reply to this, but…
> 
> The draft's simple example of this behavior serves as a way to frame its discussion of some of the problems that can result.  But it does not produce a definition.  If that was the wg's purpose for this document, then this doesn't suit.
> 
> The draft itself says that it is not intended to provide a definition:
> 
>   While the formal definition of a 'route-leak' has proven elusive in
>   literature, the rampant occurrence and persistent operational threats
>   have proven to be anything but uncommon.  This document is intended
>   to serve as a proof of existence for the referenced attack vector and
>   any supplementary formal models are left for future work.
> 
> As a motivating example, this draft works.  As a definition of what is and is not a route leak, it does not.
> 
> I suspect if an explicit definition is not worked out now, it will get worked out in the middle of trying to work out a solution, which will be very messy.  It is always hard to work toward a solution when you aren't working from a common understanding of what you are solving.
> 
> --Sandy
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>