Re: [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-19.txt> (The RPKI/Router Protocol) to Proposed Standard

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 15 December 2011 23:56 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 6DDD111E808A for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:56:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, 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 IL6zvG2HXZBU for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E3211E8098 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:56:46 -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 1RbLAL-000Azh-7J; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:56:45 +0000
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:56:44 -0800
Message-ID: <m239cls81v.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <FF8D803A-4C2D-4A3A-B274-70A9FB514F5C@castlepoint.net>
References: <20111129225106.25323.811.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FF8D803A-4C2D-4A3A-B274-70A9FB514F5C@castlepoint.net>
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] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-19.txt> (The RPKI/Router Protocol) to Proposed Standard
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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:56:47 -0000

[ people whacked me to resend to sidr list ]

I am not sure if this is an architectural misunderstanding V a red
herring.

As you say, NetConf is for *configuring* routers.  RPKI-rtr is not used
for router configuration, but rather dynamic data, a la IS-IS or BGP.
In fact, the RPKI-rtr payload data go into the same data structure as
the BGP data.

Of course, the configuration of the RPKI-rtr relationship to cache(s) is
router configuration, similar to configuring BGP peers, and presumably
can be done by NetConf on those platforms which support NetConf.

Bottom line: NetConf 'replaces' the CLI, not BGP.

FWIW, two or three years ago, not wanting to reinvent the wheel, we
looked at NetConf-style payload packaging.  After all, Bert and I
chartered NetConf back in the day.  I still owe a dinner to the two
NetConf folk who helped try.  Unfortunately the mismatch was
non-trivial, though nowhere near the mismatch of DNSsec, at which we
also looked (as the Tonys and I had published in 1998, Lutz in 2006,
etc., of which I presume you are unaware).

When we evaluated the data bloat for NetConf-style packaging we were not
cheered.  While probably not important for a CLI replacement, for a
continuous dynamic protocol the overhead of unpacking XML and decoding
the contained ASCII payload drew unhappy whining from the router
hackers.

NetConf is not ideal for a long-session back-and-forth protocol, with
RPKI-rtr's serial number exchange which leaves the router in control of
the exchanges and enables incremental update of the data.  You *really*
do not want the cache to send the full data set to the router every
time.  And you definitely do not want a cache trying to keep track of
the state of O(100) router clients which may or may not still think they
are its friend.

And, sadly, NetConf is not available on significant platforms where
RPKI-rtr is already running today.

So, all in all, being lazy, of course we tried.  But it was not a good
fit.  Of course, if you want to have a go at it, I am sure we would be
willing to at least kibitz.  But first you might want to talk to the
vendors who have already implemented RPKI-rtr to see if they would be
willing to re-code.

randy