[sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-04.txt

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Mon, 26 March 2012 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 444D521F8510 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.507
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CEMsWVK2ZY8t for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFDF21F83EF for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1SCAeU-000DAp-NT for sidr@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:12:06 +0000
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:12:05 +0200
Message-ID: <m2k427h2oa.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
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=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-04.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: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:12:17 -0000

at this afternoon's sidr ssion, i presented two open issue with

1 - Should updates learned via iBGP be marked?

2 - Should updates injected into BGP on this router be marked?

i think yes because:
  o i want support of incremental deployment
  o i do not want to find out I am announcing garbage when my neighbor’s
    NOC calls, mis-originations should be stopped at the source

there was fear that, if used at other than edge routers, this allowed
creation of loops, as setting local pref etc, do.

i think there was general agreement that this was ok on edge routers
and the point of injection, as that is logically an edge router.

would like to see convergence on this