Re: [sidr] New Version: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-11
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 20 January 2015 07:11 UTC
Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB4B1ACEE3 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:11:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 pmAs0TmSKH5o for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:11:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [198.180.150.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 433611ACE69 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:11:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1YDSxw-0005Xr-83; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:11:08 +0000
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:11:09 +0900
Message-ID: <m28ugyrkoi.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Matthew Lepinski <mlepinski.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANTg3aCZuiuMPNZ80-yfwL43Uwu57fRGFTKUuXp2qop-crqqEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANTg3aCZuiuMPNZ80-yfwL43Uwu57fRGFTKUuXp2qop-crqqEg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/S6RMd419OxKi8C0zEecfUwAhO28>
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] New Version: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-11
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 20 Jan 2015 07:11:18 -0000
> One minor issue that arose in making these revisions: > > Consider the case where you are creating a new update message somewhere > within your AS (to originate a route to one of your own prefixes) and you > are sending this new update message via iBGP to an internal peer. The > document currently says that you omit the Secure_Path attribute (that is, > the BGPsec_Path attribute is added by your edge router ... since the > signature depends on the eBGP peer to whom an update is being sent). > > An alternative would be to include an 'empty' BGPsec_Path attribute ... > that is, one with zero Secure_Path segments and zero Signature segments. > > If you think sending an empty BGPsec_Path is better than omitting the > BGPsec_Path, please speak up now. (Both approaches seem perfectly fine to > me.) the iBGPsec originator creates an empty BGPsec_Path and sends the update to o whether the iBGPsec speaker might send a BGPsec_Path to a iBGP peer is a per-peer decision determined at BGP_OPEN. o an eBGP edge which has >0 peers who do not speak BGPsec has to strip to non-speakers, which may be pretty common in early daze. o iBGP originators which are not BGPsec enabled will need the eBGPsec edge to create the BGPsec_Path anyway. where's the win? randy
- [sidr] New Version: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… Matthew Lepinski
- Re: [sidr] New Version: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pr… Randy Bush