IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] Protocol Action: 'BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-11.txt)

Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net> Sat, 04 March 2017 03:59 UTC

Return-Path: <morrowc@ops-netman.net>
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 3C55A127076; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 19:59:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 Z2kCTfzG1Xee; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 19:59:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.kvm02.ops-netman.net (relay.kvm02.ops-netman.net [IPv6:2606:700:e:550:5c82:28ff:fe25:4960]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEACE127071; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 19:59:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.ops-netman.net (mailserver.ops-netman.net [199.168.90.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay.kvm02.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DE9E3FFC9; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 03:59:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from morrowc.roam.corp.google.com.ops-netman.net (static-96-241-182-39.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.182.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C467B493FD33; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 03:59:20 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 22:59:20 -0500
Message-ID: <yj9oo9xhr8tj.wl%morrowc@ops-netman.net>
From: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m27f45x5jx.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <148414831932.11019.14685466226406323027.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <904eb4e5f3b54f8fb5eeddba482566c6@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <AF3156BF-6CC9-4DDF-8C7A-4D6EDB9668AB@cisco.com> <D4DF2B46.74CF0%dougm@nist.gov> <m27f45x5jx.wl-randy@psg.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Organization: Operations Network Management, Ltd.
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/Zg3VpYdA9PXy5zKv9Q4tl5DnQq4>
Cc: "draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling@ietf.org>, "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>, "sidr-chairs@ietf.org" <sidr-chairs@ietf.org>, "sandy@tislabs.com" <sandy@tislabs.com>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Protocol Action: 'BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-11.txt)
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: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 03:59:26 -0000

At Sat, 04 Mar 2017 09:13:22 +0900,
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> 
> i am very confused.  what is the actual problem here?
> 
> if the community arrives at a router that has computed a validation
> state from local data, the community's state must be ignored.
> 
> does the spec need to be clarified in this aspect?  if so, text would be
> helpful.

It sounds like implementers are unsure if the 3rd back sentence is
correct/intended. How about:

Section 2, 3rd paragraph:

  "Similarly on the receiving IBGP speakers, the validation
   state of an IBGP route SHOULD be derived directly from the last octet
   of the extended community, if present."

to:
 "Similarly on the receiving IBGP speakers, the validation state of
  an IBGP route SHOULD be derived directly from the last octet of the
  extended community, if present. A receiving router should use
  locally achieved validation state before trusting an IBGP neighbors
  state information."

-chris

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email