Re: What to improve? BCP-38/SAC-004 anyone?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 31 December 2015 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C7C1A8A05 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:54:45 -0800 (PST)
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 tVF5lWxnw3gA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:54:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (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 92DB41A8A04 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:54:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-x233.google.com with SMTP id cy9so155249072pac.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:54:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=b6JmrMZw1ltzqt5XfogSQZCHDtjhI2jAkOVsihAXYHw=; b=aIdz5Q81psHGWooLu5RkrGvPXk/vEWtzEGBRGnbhxt1q7NZWqVTQjfOom9hhFXqdet eUwc4wugwwDhebPj+owmx+PBJno2BfEyBw5y24kCGsd6Er/VAie/tTi9x651+7dTof6+ sRuIdsxFAXcWjyeivg1nlzUFzs2beKa7b4fq7TSd5IBQrbGM6oHX/iBa4idGzXZBgMbh PjoUcyZ/Txn9lv0/fqhZUpvHDLSYnDUGC2rySAmo8PW39MU26DMpCedVBvDTWTL2h524 uFHVx5jmrKjL+8t1wW2EoyVVnuj1RTSlp6dfSdi4r3votOoS3esnc+ccFesD+hLaVLd/ MX/w==
X-Received: by 10.67.3.230 with SMTP id bz6mr103423622pad.118.1451588084250; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:54:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:66c8:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:66c8:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id rz10sm103353031pac.29.2015.12.31.10.54.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:54:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: What to improve? BCP-38/SAC-004 anyone?
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>, Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
References: <7664F94E-F7A6-4556-B1E6-2DE536A7B7FC@frobbit.se> <5684FCDB.7010009@mnt.se> <A074CA07-691E-41A7-B1D7-33F4ECBED5A9@puck.nether.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <568579FB.6030702@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 07:54:51 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A074CA07-691E-41A7-B1D7-33F4ECBED5A9@puck.nether.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HxylDzM61cGuWDfyBjiDxpBaXTY>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:54:46 -0000

On 01/01/2016 06:04, Jared Mauch wrote:
...
> The reason we (as an operator) can’t use BCP-38 is the vendor hardware can’t do it at line-rate and the performance hit is too much to sustain.

That seems worth a bit more discussion. I'd always naively assumed that BCP38 was
scalable since all it appears to need is a prefix match, and routers are very
good at matching prefixes; it's just that they don't normally match the source
prefix. Could some router-vendor person comment on this?

There's another issue here, though. BCP-38 and uRPF are also a potential cause of
connectivity problems: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host

   Brian