Re: [Idr] 2 week adoption call for - draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation-00
Andrei Robachevsky <andrei.robachevsky@gmail.com> Tue, 14 July 2015 08:08 UTC
Return-Path: <andrei.robachevsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D8A1A904F for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 aCLSXUwqSJob for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) (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 C8DEF1A9050 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgkl9 with SMTP id l9so2157447wgk.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-type; bh=zm0VINNbQ8fqHjTQfhsmjGrHdC7EjecOo3aXjrXisYc=; b=Gw6MgKmp96S3lCDU1wp9yfe0IuNsyKePwFzPiKG4KIz+ro+5+IDe6o4DKlT6hFKvSu +YKiD22fNoTaOmtH7j3QUm5Y0AbaFidUSWZl8AhAVok0+B+2GRxdX1h0Qaa6VI/5omaB m4vAfmWb8BabTL+iSJfA0Z0hjgGaEOE2jOxU9KEHv72JtJ8E/YAZQSS16CsXBcYuOJ+u gJGDTo9a7xqaG0crB4UJVfd+843OutMtLIBtWzZ5wtAq2EPoy+Pv6+Pp6Li9I8D/nkHv V9LvOZTJwnUyK98i1I8VjMjzxO2+pbvZDcuwt7qjTRSwYMRUi3qpU+Q363ztY/nvEnfT pwPQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.88.8 with SMTP id bc8mr2874455wib.19.1436861280265; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ISOC-A1FD58.local ([92.109.76.43]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id pf4sm488950wjb.23.2015.07.14.01.07.58 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: "idr@ietf.org List" <idr@ietf.org>
From: Andrei Robachevsky <andrei.robachevsky@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55A4C35D.5060908@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:07:57 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="k6QpbSsD2IW57F0fGFvsP7EvlmgMNL62F"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wOAjX8MiyRKkgZZ6sAlZIa4KmkA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week adoption call for - draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation-00
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 14 Jul 2015 08:08:04 -0000
[Apologies for missing the deadline] > IDR Working group: > > > > This begins a 2 week adoption call for > > draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation-00 > > I support adoption of this draft as a WG document. > > a) Who will desire to read this informational draft now and in 1 year from now>? > I suspect it will take some time to develop and implement a solution. > b) Is this informational draft’s description of route-leak types and mitigated by the origin validation [RFC 6811] and BGPSEC path validation > > [draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] are correct? > Yes, there is a companion document in the GROW WG: draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition, containing more detailed discussion of the definition of the problem. > c) It is necessary to solve the route-leak problems not covered by origin validation and BGPSEC path validation? > Yes. > d) Do you think the solution suggested for the extension of BGPSEC will fix these unsolved route-leak problems? > I hope. Regards, Andrei > > > Sue Hares and John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] 2 week adoption call for - draft-sriram… Andrei Robachevsky