Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-10

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Mon, 12 December 2016 18:32 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 82A46129484 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:32:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JhSviMIEw71R for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 4451212941D for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cGVPA-0002ny-4N; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 18:32:52 +0000
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:32:49 -0800
Message-ID: <m237ht2e26.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <167fc1b5-50b9-a240-afb7-080ab97f1805@bogus.com>
References: <1FBAD3F8-5387-47A3-9988-A49A3133490A@cisco.com> <m2d1ha2ul2.wl-randy@psg.com> <C7A005B5-7550-4B74-8C80-C32C60093CD9@cisco.com> <m21sxkwozs.wl-randy@psg.com> <m2y3zra1ns.wl-randy@psg.com> <167fc1b5-50b9-a240-afb7-080ab97f1805@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/ONEu7f1UyNO0IqodCt9DVUgdmRU>
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-10
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 18:32:55 -0000

>> otoh, private AS numbers are used in non-confed topologies, e.g. the bgp
>> stub customer who uses a private AS.  they should not sign of course.
>> but once i receive their announcement and strip the private AS,
>> can/should i sign?  i just looked at bgpsec-protocol and found no
>> guidance.
> 
> from that vantage point you are the origin. it's not clear to me that
> a customer relationship is substantively then if you do this internal
                                          ^ did you drop "different?"
> to your org. operationally the'yre probably also registering route
> objects, issuing LOAS and operating on behalf of the private ASN.

almost.  while they _may_ be registering route objects, it is unlikely
they are signing contracts on behalf of the customer.  different transit
providers provision customers using private ASs in different ways (doh).

but i think essentially we are in agreement.  as far as bgpsec and
roa-based origin validation go, it would probably be good to specify how
the transit operator proxies for the private AS customer.

but this is the ietf.  i have faith that someone can come up with a
corner case where this should not be done. :)

randy