Re: [GROW] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-06

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 4/19/17 1:52 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19/04/2017 02:06, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> 5.  Security Considerations
>>>>
>>>>     Operators should note the recommendations in Section 11 of BGP
>>>>     Operations and Security [RFC7454].
>>>>
>>>> SB> You do not address the question of whether there are new
>>>> SB> considerations, or considerations that are of increased importance?
>>> It is my understanding that RFC 8092 "BGP Large Communities" are just
>>> like RFC 1997 "BGP Communities", but ...  larger (for lack of better
>>> words). Referencing RFC 7454 seems plenteous.
>>>
>>> So, what if there are not any additional considerations, If there were,
>>> they would've been (or are) covered in RFC 8092's security section,
>>> right?
>>>
>>> This is an Internet-Draft targetted for Informational status, I'm not
>>> sure what you expect here.
>>>
>>>> SB> Is there is text somewhere that discusses the integrity and
>>>> SB> synchronization of the parameters and any consequences that arise?
>>> the what now? Can you elaborate on the above?
>> you're supposed to guess
>>
>> the normal hack here is
>>
>>    this document introduces no new security issues beyond those discussed
>>    in 1997
> 
> Guessing is horrible, but if that is what you do, that is what you do,
> and if the risks are the accepted norm in the BGP
> community I am fine.
> 
> Is corruption (deliberate or otherwise) of the community strings
> something that BGPsec will address?

That seems like a dubious premise given that they are optional. One can
simply remove them and substitute / add additional ones if you so
inclined and that occcurs in the normal course of events.

> - Stewart
>