Re: [I2nsf] IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded

Hi Sue,
I have much interest in your proposed item.
I think the following RFC 9061 can be used for the IPsec interface for BGP
over IPsec.

- RFC 9061: A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection Based on
Software-Defined Networking (SDN)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9061

We can regard BGP routers as NSFs, and we can run either IKE or IKE-less
approach in RFC 9061.
We can also extend the approach in RFC 9061 so that it can accommodate BGP
message exchanges
(e.g., AS-PATH and NEXT-HOP attributes).

I will investigate RFC 9061 more to see whether my comments are correct or
not.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 8:55 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

> Linda:
>
>
>
> I apologize for being unclear.  We ran into a few problems with trying to
> complete the BGP Yang model in the area of IPsec links.   BGP runs over TCP
> over IPsec links in some scenarios.  When creating the modeling, it was
> unclear which Yang modules were targeted to support this feature.
>
>
>
> What I need is advice from the I2NSF and the IPSECME on the place to ask
> for work additions to support BGP peers.
>
>
>
> The scenario is between two BGP routers. The type of IPsec connections
> between BGP routers can be:
>
>    - within a trusted cloud (same administrative domain, same trust
>    cloud),
>    - across a physically secure private link,
>    - across the open Internet (where attacks happen).
>
>
>
> The key is we want to configure and monitor the IPsec link.
>
>
>
> As BGP co-authors looked at this, I did not understand which group to ask
> help from.  I volunteered to  ask for help.
>
>
>
> If you or anyone can point me to where to go without taking valuable WG
> time, it would be great.  If you need me to explain more on email, I’d be
> glad to.
>
>
>
> Rather than just pose this question from the Mike-line, I thought I’d ask
> ahead of time.
>
>
>
> Cheers, sue
>
>
>
> *From:* Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2022 6:09 PM
> *To:* Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; i2nsf@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded
>
>
>
>
>
> Sue,
>
>
>
> Are you talking about IPsec between two trusted nodes?
>
> Something different from the IPsecme WG?
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
> *From:* Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2022 3:00 PM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; i2nsf@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded
>
>
>
> Linda:
>
>
>
> In the recharter discussion, is it appropriate to ask about specific items
> such as additions to ipsec work in I2NSF?
>
> I do not have a draft for this work.
>
>
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> *From:* I2nsf <i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Linda Dunbar
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2022 3:44 PM
> *To:* i2nsf@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [I2nsf] IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded
>
>
>
>
>
> I2NSF WG,
>
>
>
> Here is the agenda for next week’s I2NSF session (Tuesday).
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-114-i2nsf/
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fagenda-114-i2nsf%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8b5d4da98b89456a579d08da69c1548c%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637938576342441642%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=N040a56pN%2BLVElz5IOt4jddwoHRH1pKTpTkAPMhd%2BD4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Please let me know if I miss anything.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Linda
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>