Re: [Idr] [GROW] some questions from {RC, LC, EC} analysis presentation in GROW

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 03 August 2021 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 DCD7A3A2972; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 OOxEbQ7ABlCa; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BABF3A296D; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: grow@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 173GcEiH087053 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Aug 2021 17:38:15 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8] claimed to be crumpet.local
To: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram=40nist.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: GROW WG <grow@ietf.org>, IDR <idr@ietf.org>
References: <SA1PR09MB8142ADE02512DB13887086AC84F09@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <24416f02-23f7-a042-8370-74f1da17ae1e@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 17:38:13 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.48
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <SA1PR09MB8142ADE02512DB13887086AC84F09@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZGTIBYC3v8nQy30ordmPEvh_pYo>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [GROW] some questions from {RC, LC, EC} analysis presentation in GROW
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 03 Aug 2021 16:38:28 -0000

Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote on 03/08/2021 16:14:
> Response: We welcome any ideas that may help compile RC/LC/EC
> application types and their propagation requirements to perform
> measurements against them. Also, it is good to follow Ruediger’s
> suggestion and have a GROW document that provides operator guidance
> on what hygiene to apply on the sender side so that the propagation
> happens safely.

good idea.

> Response: The RTBH service is requested by the prefix owner. That is 
> why it is assumed that it is added at the AS where the prefix is 
> located, i.e., the origin AS. Are there legitimate circumstances 
> where an AS that is 2 or 3 hops upstream from the prefix can make 
> that request?
short answer: yes, although this would be unusual.

Nick