Re: [Idr] [GROW] [Sidrops] operator inputs -- route leak solution

"Susan Hares" <> Thu, 23 March 2017 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB29F1293F8; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 06:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BODY_ENHANCEMENT=0.001, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F9lRRZcKlZu2; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 06:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F20371296EA; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 06:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Brian Dickson' <>, 'Randy Bush' <>
Cc:,,, 'sidr wg list' <>,
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:54:28 -0400
Message-ID: <02fa01d2a3d4$9bff4dc0$d3fde940$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02FB_01D2A3B3.14EEBF30"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFy2aVjjW9G+WpNY0ppJr8stM1gVQGcf8JwAoeB1GSiQNC3IA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [GROW] [Sidrops] operator inputs -- route leak solution
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:00:07 -0000

Brian, Sriram and Randy: 


<IDR co-chair hat on> 

Let me suggest we take the rest of this discussion on these IDR two drafts offline from IDR.  The IDR Chairs noted  when the draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection mitigation was adopted  that there was overlap between you two documents.  We also noted interests in both technical approaches.  We asked to you provide a combined document that the chairs could present to the IDR WG.  This IETF is a wonderful time to work on this project.   Chicago has many fine establishments in which to discuss this combined document.   


I suggest we focused on the technical issues on the IDR mail lists.  For discussions of IDR on the grow list, I suggest that we listen to the valuable input from the operators on what their needs and ask clarifying questions.  

<IDR co-chair hat off> 


Thank you, 


Sue Hares 


From: GROW [] On Behalf Of Brian Dickson
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 9:10 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc:;;; sidr wg list (;
Subject: Re: [GROW] [Sidrops] operator inputs -- route leak solution


On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush <> wrote:

> SIDR/GROW/IDR and well documented in IDR (see Section 4)
> (  ).
> The solution involves AS-A setting a field (in an optional transitive
> attribute)

glad you liked the attribute approach well enough to plagarize it from
our draft.  now you just need to change from misconfigurable statements
of relationships to plagarize the bgp open part of our draft and your




With all due respect, your draft fails to acknowledge the earlier work by me (from 2012), outside of the recent drafts of which I am a co-author.



draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-def (which became the basis for RFC 7908)




So, perhaps it would be best to avoid claims of plagiarizing, when (a) there is clear evidence that the source of the material predates your work, and (b) when your work does not credit the original work by me.


Pot calling the kettle black, throwing stones in glass houses, and all that.


You might want to also read those (expired) I-Ds, to get clarity on preserving leak prevention across "special" peering sessions

They also cover the ability to prevent leaks, without requiring the disclosure of customer relationships -- something for which you have expressed a strong desire.


FWIW, I will be working with my co-authors on the relationship-disclosure detail.


Maybe we can schedule some white-board time in Chicago.




P.S.  It is "you're golden".