Re: [sidr] Request for WG Last Call for draft-ietf-sidr-bogons-02.txt and draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-01.txt

I've seen use cases developed into an i-d in other working groups, but 
that involves a lot of effort to ensure the list is complete and 
consistent.  I mention two, Geoff has added four more.  It would take time 
to be complete - do we want to take the time?

One aspect of the use cases is new operational practices that may arise 
from different approaches.  (For example: if I'm worried that my customers 
may be impacted if they do not sign ROAs, perhaps I automatically do it 
for all customers as part of allocation.  But then we'd have to look 
carefully about moving out-sourced-CA services from me to my customer at 
some point.  This is NOT NOT NOT a definite suggestion, just an example of 
my belief that operational practices will be induced by any solution.)

--Sandy

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Andy Newton wrote:

> Perhaps these should be considered for informative text in an I-D.
>
> -andy
>
>
> On 11/25/08 8:39 PM, "Geoff Huston" <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
>
>> Sure. So here's some use cases of BOAs:
>>
>> 1. I have been allocated 203.10.61.0/24. I do not use it today in any
>> public routing context. It should not appear in BGP at all. I do not
>> give my authorization to any AS to originate a route for this prefix,
>> or any more specific of this prefix. If I generate a BOA for
>> 203.10.61.0/24 then my intention of saying that any use of this prefix
>> in the public Internet is unauthorized is clear.
>>
>> 2. I have been allocated AS 131074 as an AS number. I do not use it
>> today in any public routing context. It should not appear in BGP at
>> all either as an origination AS nor as a transit AS in any AS path. If
>> I generate a BOA for AS131074 then my intention of saying that any use
>> of this AS number in the public Internet is unauthorized is clear.
>>
>> 3. I have been allocated 203.10.60.0/22. I wish to ensure that any
>> more specific advertisement of this prefix is unauthorized. If I
>> generate a BOA for 203.10.60.0/23 AND 203.10.62.0/23 then my intention
>> is clear.
>>
>> And a non-use case of BOAs:
>>
>> 4. I am a wholesale ISP, and while I allocate address space to my
>> clients from my aggregate address block (10.0.0.0/8) I also permit my
>> clients to use their more specific prefix at local exchanges. My AS
>> number is 131072 and I have generated a ROA for 10.0.0.0/8 ,
>> maxlength=8  origin AS 131072. I do not have a problem with more
>> specifics of 10.0.0.0/8 being used in routing contexts, as part of my
>> wholesale stance. I would prefer that my ROA did not cause my
>> customer's more specifics to be treated as unauthorized routes,
>> irrespective of whether they are ready to use a ROA today or not.
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr