Re: [sidr] Route Leak fix: V free routing

Randy Bush <> Tue, 22 November 2011 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9510421F8DFE for <>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 05:45:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.589
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FBJbprxdEqqX for <>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 05:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F59B21F8DE8 for <>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 05:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1RSqf9-0008hw-ED; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:45:27 +0000
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:45:24 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: Douglas Montgomery <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: sidr wg list <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Route Leak fix: V free routing
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:45:29 -0000

> These ideas have floated around for 20+ years.  They have even appeared in
> early BGP specs ... See "LINK TYPE" in
> I actually think this is a useful idea, but the discussion always rat
> holes in the supposition of absolute filtering rules and proof by counter
> examples.
> I think it would be simple for transmitters to indicate and sign their
> view of the peering relationship they are sending an update over.
> Customer, provider, peer, or unspecified.
> (where/how you encode this is a detail, I would suggest in the PATH SIG
> unless we decide to take on the more general approach below).
> What receivers do with that information ... Just like validation state,
> would be a matter of local policy.
> Worse case is everyone chooses unspecified and we waste two bits under the
> signature.
> Best case for those who don't care about declaring who their
> customers/providers are to their customers/providers .... Then receivers
> can choose to filter "V" routes if they wish.

[ thanks for the only actual constructive hint i have seen on this list
  for a while.  being still on travel and very time constrained, i have
  started just hitting delete to the repeat blather from the failed
  rpsec wg. ]

do you expect it to be covered by the signature?  if so, then the
business relationship is published globally.  do you see a way to assure
veracity and non-repudiation while not exposing globally?