IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] 2 week adoption call for - draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation-00 (6/25 to 7/9/2015)

Matthias Waehlisch <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de> Sun, 19 July 2015 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de>
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 E91241AC40A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 XKF7XsTIVOjq for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68E411AC3FB for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.85) for idr@ietf.org with esmtp (envelope-from <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de>) id <1ZGm69-002Arz-Pz>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:45:33 +0200
Received: from dhcp-9c64.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.156.100] helo=mw-PC.meeting.ietf.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.85) for idr@ietf.org with esmtpsa (envelope-from <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de>) id <1ZGm69-001z6F-Gd>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:45:33 +0200
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:42:40 +0200
From: Matthias Waehlisch <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de>
To: idr wg list <idr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR09MB07937BD854EC9E0B9E07FCE684860@CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1507191239010.3980@mw-PC>
References: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1507191139440.3980@mw-PC>, <CY1PR09MB07936E85F7DCEFADE18640AE84860@CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <CY1PR09MB07937BD854EC9E0B9E07FCE684860@CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (WNT 1167 2008-08-23)
X-X-Sender: waehl@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="269854628-17335-1437302343=:3980"
Content-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1507191239140.3980@mw-PC>
X-Originating-IP: 31.133.156.100
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/x-6tKlX0r2Rh3bs1YI_TwVicGmk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week adoption call for - draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation-00 (6/25 to 7/9/2015)
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: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:45:37 -0000

Hi,

  +1.


Sorry for the delay
  matthias


> -----------------------------------------
> 
> [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
> 


-- 
Matthias Waehlisch
.  Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST
.  Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
.. mailto:waehlisch@ieee.org .. http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl
:. Also: http://inet.cpt.haw-hamburg.de .. http://www.link-lab.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email