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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 22 November 2011 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
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 9510421F8DFE for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 05:45:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 FBJbprxdEqqX for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 05:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F59B21F8DE8 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 05:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1RSqf9-0008hw-ED; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:45:27 +0000
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:45:24 +0200
Message-ID: <m2aa7onudn.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Douglas Montgomery <dougm@nist.gov>
In-Reply-To: <CAEFE521.704A0%dougm@nist.gov>
References: <F45661E8FBC74F4EB7E1E0386B562A7502B85C80@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> <CAEFE521.704A0%dougm@nist.gov>
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 <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Route Leak fix: V free routing
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: 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 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1105.txt.
> 
> 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?

randy