Re: [OPSEC] Comments on draft-jdurand-bgp-security-02

Tim Kleefass <tim@haitabu.net> Wed, 09 January 2013 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@haitabu.net>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5930721F8678 for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 02:29:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FMnvSgTz9-fn for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 02:29:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from samstag.members.selfnet.de (samstag.members.selfnet.de [141.31.176.199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7210921F848B for <opsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 02:29:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chekov.ws.belwue.de (chekov.ws.belwue.de [IPv6:2001:7c0:0:f00::9d]) by samstag.members.selfnet.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72A4421C06E for <opsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 11:29:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <50ED467D.3090108@haitabu.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:29:17 +0100
From: Tim Kleefass <tim@haitabu.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>
References: <506C5954.9050807@haitabu.net>
In-Reply-To: <506C5954.9050807@haitabu.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Comments on draft-jdurand-bgp-security-02
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 10:29:41 -0000

On 03.10.2012 5:27 PM, Tim Kleefass wrote:
> * About route flap dampening
> 
> """
> 6.  BGP route flap dampening
> 
>    BGP route flap dampening mechanism makes it possible to give
>    penalties to routes each time they change in the BGP routing table.
>    Initially this mechanism was created to protect the entire internet
>    from multiple events impacting a single network.  RIPE community now
>    recommends not using BGP route flap dampening [20].  Author of this
>    document proposes to follow the proposal of the RIPE community.
> """
> 
> On that topic there are some "updates" at the RIPE-64:
> 
>   Randy Bush, Route Flap Damping Considered Usable @ RIPE-64
>   https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/136-120418.ripe-rfd.pdf
>   https://ripe64.ripe.net/archives/video/80
> 
>   [routing-wg] Route flap damping considered usable
>   http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/2012-July/002163.html
> 
> So maybe the recommendation of the RIPE community will change in the
> future...

RIPE published a few days ago an update on this.

"RIPE Routing Working Group Recommendations on Route Flap Damping"

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-580/

Cheers,
	Tim