Re: [Idr] Securing BGP sessions (Issue#41)

Hi Acee,

> On Dec 10, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mahesh, 
> I assume by IPsec, you mean transport mode IPsec.

Yes. The assumption is that the underlying transport is secured using IPsec, and the model provides (if needed) key parameters needed to kick off the IKE to setup the SA in IPsec.

HTH.

> For IPsec protection of BGP, where are the details specified? 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> On 12/10/19, 7:35 PM, "Idr on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani" <idr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>    This is the second thread in the list of issues that were discussed in IETF 106 w.r.t. to BGP YANG model. This particular thread is to discuss the issue of defining how BGP sessions are going to be secured.
> 
>    As stated in Singapore, the model is being defined to secure BGP sessions using 
>    - TCP AO
>    - TCP MD5
>    - IPSec
> 
>    In case there was a question of why MD5, it is because there are existing implementations that are choosing to stay with MD5, regardless of the issues that have been raised about MD5. The model therefore has to support such implementations.
> 
>    The model will use the ietf-key-chain model’s (RFC 8177) key-chain-ref to refer to an instance of the key chain. By doing that it will make use of the key rollover capability defined in that model, and for static key configuration by setting the end time to infinite in the key chain. The BGP model will leave the case of IPSec as TBD for now, and fill it when/if the IPSec YANG model is defined.
> 
>    Questions/Concerns?
> 
>    Mahesh Jethanandani
>    mjethanandani@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
>    _______________________________________________
>    Idr mailing list
>    Idr@ietf.org
>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> 
> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com