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

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

> 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