IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7115 (4973)

Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnet.gr> Fri, 31 March 2017 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <achatz@forthnet.gr>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7693A12951B; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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=forthnet.gr
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 mvP9Vk5Fxw14; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zm-out-01.forthnet.gr (zm-out-01.forthnet.gr [194.219.0.13]) (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 6A3B012943C; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv (zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv [10.24.31.15]) by zm-out-01.forthnet.gr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A8E121CA5; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 00:54:28 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1]) by zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB36A120209; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 00:54:28 +0300 (EEST)
X-DSPAM-Result: Spam
Authentication-Results: zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=forthnet.gr
Received: from zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id UBsWsPkdkCCv; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 00:54:28 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1]) by zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365A212058A; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 00:54:28 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv 365A212058A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=forthnet.gr; s=zm; t=1490997268; bh=cvEp0tYuUkw5v22Ej/2CV8X3rygkXC4PjScwQ5mERrw=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=VzPll3/iEi4JK/K8eUc3OveO5fHo8vyLw/oGeTS/VZptUj9sWBPE4KRIa/rFd8mM/ ReTXN1AHtRZR+xxuxhSdkU/jlbSh4UuH6/BgcF6GZnligMfR3cl3FaDW5jZviMwb95 /AZo/zT2/+iGfotsYrOwZy4plR/Kexkfc8i4TR2k=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv
Received: from zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id nesTS0oujEYy; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 00:54:28 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:2149:8741:de00:c481:7dde:b705:b9e0] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2149:8741:de00:c481:7dde:b705:b9e0]) by zm-in-01.cloud.forthnet.prv (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B72C2120209; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 00:54:27 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <58DED00C.4010708@forthnet.gr>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 00:54:20 +0300
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnet.gr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0 SeaMonkey/2.32.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
CC: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, iesg@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org
References: <20170325111712.915D2B80A4D@rfc-editor.org> <m2shm1d1v4.wl-randy@psg.com> <1681FB94-57AC-4B58-B8EE-9B5B66DD013C@tislabs.com> <m2inmutvp9.wl-randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2inmutvp9.wl-randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/5F9M0rbHJfM5gNxSOJ5DQWyqWVg>
Subject: Re: [sidr] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7115 (4973)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 21:54:36 -0000

Since RFC's intention is to provide guidance, i believe that saying "a forged origin attack cannot succeed against 10.0.666.0/24" is a little bit confusing, because this statement is valid even without any RPKI in place.

After all, there is another reference of a non-documentation but valid prefix 10.0.42.0/24 already included and imho it wouldn't do any harm to include one more.

--
Tassos

Randy Bush wrote on 27/3/17 21:34:
>> In some cultures, the number 666 is supposed to be the number of “the
>> beast”, i.e. the devil, and therefore a sign of evil.  The text
>> chooses this number 666 in the prefix 10.0.666.0/24 with the intent to
>> imply that the announcement is deliberately evil, disregarding the
>> fact that 666 is not a legitimate ipv4 prefix octet.
>>
>> Of course, I’m not the author, so I could be wrong.
> you are, but no big deal.  it could have been anything gt 255, but i
> knew 666 would catch the western eye.
>
> randy
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email