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

Brian Dickson <> Thu, 23 March 2017 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013341292F5; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CCO3WtYsAR8q; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C385128954; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w124so32095238itb.1; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qtGpYjit16EONu0EM0Wx5kW3QiIcY7QDfJOGkqQtaJI=; b=imeni+XKvXGsUU5vlf/8RXUaCta7nnXAzPjdTM+BkAdRHUvZFjFOLr5XyWz8/aCRAy gNYMmxthjEOCdagRbhrmHzCedInHQaxSCv6N18LQnuJmPo/G7aOty5TEkuW2QUbHYwLI 8vVVcnnOtH2yaLSTkh2WtzsM4R5dB91ZERfn5Mu3axSzFvsSQ77SfIqLzxlMVxx2g7xq /jwgkELna0y0lIisGKeV13loiLr8IJ/uSuVXMY0KSQHIHx14ekjxv6sGQ7PYxcHwrR8f GZhGkU/OZLfVeaNz9dAGXe2O7m3YzXibI4vB35oXszn35ca+wEWfAk9mNefTnWBkXmsR elMg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qtGpYjit16EONu0EM0Wx5kW3QiIcY7QDfJOGkqQtaJI=; b=MvBj4vWAv7Aivhv/v9wXKoI2LNi7unIY4COjM+h+EeYoCPm9UtwIUXsGPpSZyg0W6z 7d4HV0k8t+CzHLjx5sRR00QFkKzSbpfOD113p2KFW6MaPFrAWDTKj4Hqgn5er4Mc+BQW WXbQOfz1zEy4qZXEwfXNQqiNqWsLgjprHy46I+OadjofjGpqOXqBn701Ew5E6aAjmjGN 94H51/ltSIRw0Kmk5Nb140YaJcVNQGC90NXzTsapRYn48vdU3gaCk/UHS97i0QLATd26 Tl82ysbmn2eoUmA2EQA1qp2oSpmtp+oCfL/lIsIjA+iN220WjXpBDsQIAYjBkvWrfWtA QxQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1YBDj2CfyijOurR5zm5LQSB2deOcXkvCvzEAYkxssc3v9A6vyp97+8NAUSTAhS4VFyUX7nC+0x0ySUog==
X-Received: by with SMTP id k186mr338487itc.75.1490231375484; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian Dickson <>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:09:34 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Randy Bush <>
Cc: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "sidr wg list (" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147f558c4efba054b5b87e3
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [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 01:09:38 -0000

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

> > SIDR/GROW/IDR and well documented in IDR (see Section 4)
> > (
> detection-mitigation-06  ).
> > 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
> golden.

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

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


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