Re: [sidr] 4-byte vs 2 byte ASN (was re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt)

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Tue, 01 November 2011 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.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 072BC21F9DDD for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 NwcpDQ6s2xFJ for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A83E21F8F0F for <sidr@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 786F733C23; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 19:04:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 19:04:26 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
Message-ID: <20111101230426.GC1872@verdi>
References: <20111031182058.24592.70473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <DCC302FAA9FE5F4BBA4DCAD4656937791451740474@PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DCC302FAA9FE5F4BBA4DCAD4656937791451740474@PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] 4-byte vs 2 byte ASN (was re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt)
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, 01 Nov 2011 23:04:54 -0000

George, Wes <wesley.george@twcable.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm thinking that we need a comment early in the draft stating that
> for the remainder of the draft no distinction is being made between
> AS_PATH and AS4_PATH,

   I wouldn't phrase it that way -- I'd emphasize instead that the AS
Path being validated is the AS Path _after_ reconstruction using
AS4_PATH in the case where routing information comes from a peer which
doesn't recognize 4-byte ASNs.

   (It would be simply wrong to "validate" AS4_PATH in the case where
you don't also do the reconstruction, or in the protocol-violating
case where you receive AS4_PATH from a peer which does speak 4-byte
ASNs.)


> Or alternatively, specify that this validation is performed on
> AS4_PATH

   That would also be wrong. :^(

> and require support for 4893 as a prerequisite for SIDR.

   IMHO, support for 4-byte ASNs should be a prerequisite. Alas, this
_does_ need to be stated.

> If we don't explicitly require hosts that support SIDR origin
> validation to support 4-byte ASN, we may also need some direction
> regarding specific handling for AS23456,

   It would be good to add that anyway, since I contend that we can't
be sure AS23456 will always be removed.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>