IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 28 November 2017 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8C712426E; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:25:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 hJobV4EiPc8q; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x229.google.com (mail-wr0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D817E126CF9; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:25:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x229.google.com with SMTP id w62so1170579wrc.6; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:25:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=befjPbdFeF3X2haApWLZbOf2182C8XpRO8ieuntmtDE=; b=QD8eDFuI1DATuRzYWDpwQRrdTJiSSYcvljys0FVLbcLU3oc2enmvk8Dh5vXZTZ7DNu bngwheJNfh6ipLNLFIuX45SNzbcSkhZEqEOCjykJ5bcM0dxIKFMkmJ/KtyEUySIjbX79 UqIiI5YDxXHaqZYSW9XXG4GHIBEWZ+PWCMeia/KJ8R4mVAyDmlnKxyYMl0PSTzwglAP5 Lt2njOPiNPoNv0zvwdcplIp5v8ON5NLLHfxDDp7pYukKkNWNLZTHi+MX+mLyjUJY9Fha wdhJH0jjrJ8TNAHP60fJ7cTkdrWnNwbjBmKdGWqciRAWzS9/mQo2O+pbNTmwrdXJ+LTt Fa3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=befjPbdFeF3X2haApWLZbOf2182C8XpRO8ieuntmtDE=; b=hPfV50QS9jBxYDeVqUjhTYs0FloV6VF4SsA5ycJsraMZUQ3919x+UgW00u+jwQxoPP aGvSgb2kkdY91efirZeJnXKfH0Pn1EBO4etzhjLdVTHGbwipNEY7D4ncbPoIj6p3rum3 2LqiC704ePHyyKnUrjXW0MgQDlV9n/xlQwq5GtvshnVVVQiLOQIQWcQ+LEWMGE/EmYeh m3zvqAep++Ooozk7zvThE8J/fuHvap89m5ihdU2/4eJZhoAe0EqCxplEeSgoZ3vXe2Vo S1CfZmyEXES6jD6sq+94LOt6BLwwzMpaJV5cjRWvt4Y74DWJTzgbqWf2nfroCBIDj0Tw UrSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6Th/L3PqR/xyR6wrrcYY6ib1brVCez7/8t27UchwnMqRDhrfLo mSliVBH5kuuvhbMMromMnVSqZOmBQ9CQvEB2eIw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaA+UMFCbC+RYuPdHdaoaDcbvLws6IGniHhdY3v3KEaK9Hqf2AEk99MugcWn2bOXdURUct7XcSlqYgcL/oHJBI=
X-Received: by 10.223.183.39 with SMTP id l39mr166837wre.175.1511897136081; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:25:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.28.54.217 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:25:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20171128191457.GU16871@pfrc.org>
References: <976743ea96934039a85fa74415b45862@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <CA+b+ERmpEghcndHKM+WKKxg1V8ufTwg=xqb0J5jNowZHj2OwAQ@mail.gmail.com> <88d5df779a344b588745108c771d3145@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <deae6e85c3ff47a6bbcac176eb91bd3e@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <F0EAF2D4-656D-48BD-830B-DC2E8B862813@nist.gov> <A0106E1A-272D-4E1D-A0F3-E3531D583AA3@cisco.com> <1D2FD437-0EEF-4FF6-9853-C09E7EEA2A15@nist.gov> <2B92A151-5A78-46EE-8A46-C09603A37219@cisco.com> <20171128183312.GT16871@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ER=mECP4XkYB1txcyWgOcEfcY3-y8BsAPPy0skPp6TO0Sw@mail.gmail.com> <20171128191457.GU16871@pfrc.org>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 20:25:35 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZGaZnQF1pKuloBChb69NAPyXOIA
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERmwWiSy4=jGqKR2Dk_2aNcAAxN=cu8dcTG6BcJfuY5JyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, "idr-ads@ietf.org" <idr-ads@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043868bcbbb386055f0ffb64"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/53_uVoCnQarotLt-fznoDubDFtU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:25:39 -0000

> ​​
I don't believe trying to solve it in this document helps.

Never suggested that.

> ​
The original scenario for bgpsec is one where we had significant concerns
> about too-small UPDATE messages causing issues.  We had to address the
> issues there.  And we already know that as a feature it has incremental
> deployment challenges.

Well if this is still for BGPSEC I think your suggestion to
treat-as-withdraw is not
that good. I do prefer to get unsecured reachability then no reachability
at all.

And if you make it treat-as-withdraw as MUST even if BGSEC itself says to
drop
crypto when it does not fit it is quite unlikely that anyone will even try
to secure
BGP UPDATES any time soon.

Cheers,
R.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email