IETF Logo Mail Archive

[sidr] draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation: difference between a peer and a customer

Andrei Robachevsky <andrei.robachevsky@gmail.com> Tue, 14 July 2015 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <andrei.robachevsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 715D51A90AD; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
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 3wBYBBOCbHJq; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) (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 4F6DD1A909A; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgmn9 with SMTP id n9so2898513wgm.0; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=4LFAXgYSjdZ+eVViHky0QFdjlooTOlqjIkjEbhrbAf8=; b=Frt4DO3eAgg7C4ll1V5ewfO9klvJbPvDP9X8cVq9pJOgten5Sj0tCCLUk3WFgsihxg aAOaWJVdb7RMYk9WnpXfBx2AMGqqR8cY5qUu4Cq73XxakW5TgPcXRB/Qx3gtqJRw6kVz QeVCB/3AOnWCttMLGLyuKHjMAbMDebx3jFP1AbGi9VwRon30ZW+p1KBYjlgcCX+dQ9wU 8D2Dm8QUWRXCrCwmiyTPkViA9UAwGFAgEY7HO56iSeUx33GBwfbnJfpQtLtj+uz3Ae1Q qRH1mObNMv5hpqGyyNrjmdHTyRrLiCFY5kdCWJOVYsHCXHBpPJFXh8EzVvJroFwxiX4k kBdA==
X-Received: by 10.194.205.101 with SMTP id lf5mr81050135wjc.37.1436863389851; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ISOC-A1FD58.local ([92.109.76.43]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id gw7sm19422423wib.15.2015.07.14.01.43.08 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
References: <005901d0b283$ea07bd20$be173760$@ndzh.com> <m2fv52b1w1.wl%randy@psg.com> <CY1PR09MB07939BA36BB01C19AD9AC2A384930@CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <CAL9jLab5LOfeSYGzt=ywAwkoJdbe4moXD2w5LsGF-L_Cju_TUw@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR09MB0793E39F703D436A3E21805B84900@CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
From: Andrei Robachevsky <andrei.robachevsky@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55A4CB9B.2050207@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:43:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR09MB0793E39F703D436A3E21805B84900@CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Tr7L8mupREAFb7Qt6BRiRwwhU5o0R3EEr"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/DJCr-84u7-kxxn4DmWVLKRocigU>
Cc: idr wg list <idr@ietf.org>, "sidr wg list (sidr@ietf.org)" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: [sidr] draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation: difference between a peer and a customer
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:43:13 -0000

Hi,

Sriram, could you please elaborate what the difference is between the
route-leak detection (and action) for customers and peers.

It seems to me that sections 3.2.1. and 3.2.2. propose the same
algorithm (modulo the BGP neighbor is a customer or a peer). The
difference in the "possible actions" (3.3.) is not clear to me either.

Finally, what is the proposed action when an RLP-marked update is
received from an upstream?

Thanks,

Andrei

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email