[Idr] route leak discussion on NANOG list

"Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov> Fri, 10 June 2016 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
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 7AE7912D745 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com
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 mmrlSMm5BTqT for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gcc01-dm2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm2gcc01on0103.outbound.protection.outlook.com [23.103.201.103]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADBFA12D5CD for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nist-gov; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=mG6HU75Xrk/ktqEVSZE8nnQAsRdbFFN2kf4NPwy13UI=; b=hN98YEdLVJof765HNJ/uDjXyL1Nzhcuu3RrlBwaacMvC5dAJqkL9bQAzIpbn/O52y0nEiLDwMTugcSpOCiRx80qxqIWF2oT/Pw39eeBPN8tgoVrTU83UNbl/NNRX+vVc17nsAkrP+0svrEYxNNlEP4zUaGIBDKfdTag6/KQZ/rk=
Received: from BL2PR09MB1123.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.167.102.151) by BL2PR09MB1122.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.167.102.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.511.8; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:06:59 +0000
Received: from BL2PR09MB1123.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.102.151]) by BL2PR09MB1123.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.102.151]) with mapi id 15.01.0511.010; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:06:59 +0000
From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: route leak discussion on NANOG list
Thread-Index: AdHDLxD13Vk9r9Z3TjOgIw2j8ir/nA==
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:06:59 +0000
Message-ID: <BL2PR09MB112353C6E65D73420410B70484500@BL2PR09MB1123.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov;
x-originating-ip: [129.6.140.122]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b09ec413-277d-45ea-212f-08d3914940fc
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BL2PR09MB1122; 5:9b2ghbRkljWWAckjc9dcRx/3J1wAneeCCCcTB6bvVuPkQHvL8uPcdvOQ+Fr892EQHfx9InWe5nukqDoHEN37IMYW8LgxENjyJvCX6j9zwyOtbm2qSj2HDm97axaSZrteXS46HvTEThhLzto6Ilu5ig==; 24:XtER+sOJ1U4uoSXhy9XVYtm+N829UQuikh0RdTcqS3Yq7KEOvRq+RgC3jNUU7O2uNw07KPuH8+Z//fgOf1LiJn//mPY32yPbx7SZZaMHD78=; 7:NcqWhOri2VZ0Mo5KvOB2bQvcj24eMJoYTekTUA0y7hX/NkvrIen0CKUQUwO7A/k6Q2KZaeLYwDnTIV8GjxVsQf1C/Mc6cSOa4dmfXBvYpH2IZxCZmdVe4k014GoOQTQJJ8YFkwxIBVR93ZFLna7g7bQ+TATRcIMCLxfhWfcKuPI71FjakuaSFfPWjIaX/TNObpwjlXmfnmGUEiSPbsPbKw==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BL2PR09MB1122;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BL2PR09MB1122930C8C0B642BE33D45D784500@BL2PR09MB1122.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(148717330147763);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026); SRVR:BL2PR09MB1122; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BL2PR09MB1122;
x-forefront-prvs: 096943F07A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(199003)(5004730100002)(87936001)(76576001)(6116002)(9686002)(74316001)(101416001)(3846002)(97736004)(107886002)(450100001)(2501003)(8936002)(5008740100001)(105586002)(81166006)(5640700001)(68736007)(102836003)(586003)(8676002)(50986999)(33656002)(66066001)(122556002)(11100500001)(77096005)(2900100001)(2906002)(54356999)(229853001)(15975445007)(19580395003)(5002640100001)(99286002)(1730700003)(86362001)(106356001)(92566002)(81156014)(3660700001)(5003600100002)(2351001)(110136002)(3280700002)(10400500002)(189998001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR09MB1122; H:BL2PR09MB1123.namprd09.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nist.gov does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nist.gov
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Jun 2016 16:06:59.4527 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL2PR09MB1122
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ySpvgzzHkP2x7o4YsSR7bKO6lec>
Subject: [Idr] route leak discussion on NANOG list
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:07:04 -0000

Just fyi...
Just in case some of us here do not often check the NANOG list,
there is interesting discussion taking place about route leak prevention.
You may check this post and the thread:
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-June/086348.html 

The inputs/insights shared on NANOG provide additional corroboration for 
the common practice related to "intra-AS messaging for route leak prevention"
that is  outlined and recommended in Section 3.2 of  [route-leak-detection-mitigation-03].
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation-03#section-3.2 

Sriram