Re: [sidr] Burstiness of BGP updates

Tony Tauber <ttauber@1-4-5.net> Fri, 18 November 2011 14:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ttauber@1-4-5.net>
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 C7AD221F8AD1 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:08:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y-qPfJ+D2VUf for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:08:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9111121F84B1 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vbbfc26 with SMTP id fc26so224975vbb.31 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:08:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.38.6 with SMTP id c6mr3821819vdk.73.1321625318097; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.183.74 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:08:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.104.152.66]
In-Reply-To: <09683D2C-A35A-4083-93D4-0E47B2106D83@apnic.net>
References: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49308E9E35567@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D21391A45A1FEC8@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4EC3125D.4000309@riw.us> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D21391A45A2061F@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4EC329C6.4090600@riw.us> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D21391A45A2062E@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4EC32EBE.6030106@riw.us> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D21391A45A20633@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <E2D346C7800D704DB41ED19D90434DA6320C15DF93@ESESSCMS0358.eemea.ericsson.se> <4EC33E88.9090505@riw.us> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D21391A45A20649@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4EC459F0.9070200@riw.us> <CAL9jLabyymUZJRk44Z00UeQsxinN5D-05-7_htmRanYwi7ysvQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EC462E9.7090103@riw.us> <m2wraz4j68.wl%randy@psg.com> <4EC4684B.3030204@riw.us> <m2ty634ie7.wl%randy@psg.com> <855A62C6-6654-4FA8-8644-B7B044C76148@verisign.com> <m2k46z4f1d.wl%randy@psg.com> <4EC48834.9060805@riw.us> <m2hb2346uq.wl%randy@psg.com> <09683D2C-A35A-4083-93D4-0E47B2106D83@apnic.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:08:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGQUKcd1nos+XfBzaSKrBu=oeNWGaMnA-AVa207GTr48pbrc2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tony Tauber <ttauber@1-4-5.net>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec51b984f9c844a04b202df6e"
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Burstiness of BGP updates
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 18 Nov 2011 14:08:48 -0000

As that old draft's author/editor (started as editor, ended up more as
author, with suggestions),
perhaps I can add some clarification to some of what's being re-hashed here.
It's likely many already understand it; some don't; some could be aided by
different wording.

Steve Kent takes the approach that working through the processing and
propagation of updates
and securing those operations to the spec.
The notion appears to me to be to model behavior based on discrete events
and the BGP FSM.

Russ White takes the approach that the overall deployed system is very
complex containing many
dimensions of variability including but not limited to time, topology, and
local practice/policy.
Following from that is a concern that, beyond a point, adding the
additional complexity being proposed
results in either no benefit or negative impact to the goals of the global
routing system.

Hopefully I've characterized things reasonably and this might help anyone
who's having
trouble following at home.

Tony

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:

>
> On 17/11/2011, at 5:10 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> The process SIDR has used is backwards --choose a solution, then build
> >> the requirements around that solution.
> >
> > the bgpsec requirements document was started from the 2008 document
> > draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-10
>
> That document never managed to reconcile the various views relating to
> AS Path validation, so I'm unclear if you are citing this as a completed
> activity, because to me it certainly appeared to be an incomplete piece
> of work.
>
> To be specific to quote from section 7 of this draft:
>
>      AS_PATH Feasibility Check: The AS_PATH list may correspond to a
>      valid list of autonomous systems according to the first
>      verification category listed in the "Areas to Secure" Section
>      above.  Further study will determine the extent to which this is a
>      security requirement.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>