IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] [Idr] No BGPSEC intradomain ?

"Montgomery, Douglas" <dougm@nist.gov> Tue, 10 April 2012 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <dougm@nist.gov>
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 51C0D21F86E8; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 EQz79bWQ8W6D; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wsget1.nist.gov (wsget1.nist.gov [129.6.13.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC26321F86E4; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.18.96) by wsget1.nist.gov (129.6.13.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:42:35 -0400
Received: from MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov ([fe80::d479:3188:aec0:cb66]) by WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov ([129.6.18.96]) with mapi; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:42:50 -0400
From: "Montgomery, Douglas" <dougm@nist.gov>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:42:47 -0400
Thread-Topic: [sidr] [Idr] No BGPSEC intradomain ?
Thread-Index: Ac0XQTaVmbg3QKfCRI6aryVBbFegkg==
Message-ID: <CBA9E89F.A697E%dougm@nist.gov>
In-Reply-To: <D7CF4F8F-AF93-43F2-BC0D-26E072307B4F@kumari.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" <idr@ietf.org>, "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] [Idr] No BGPSEC intradomain ?
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:42:52 -0000

On 4/10/12 1:37 PM, "Warren Kumari" <warren@kumari.net> wrote:

>
>On Apr 10, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
>>wrote:
>>> Anyhow my doubt has been answered and I stay by my opinion that not
>>>sending
>>> AS_PATH and AS4_PATH is a terrible idea.
>> 
>> So... we can send the data along, but in the case of BGPSEC speakers
>> the data isn't used (it's replicated in the BGPSEC_SIGNED_PATH).
>> Carrying extra bits isn't actually helpful is it? (the implementers
>> drove the design decision here I believe)
>
>I think that sone of the biggest issues to keep in mind with carrying the
>"same" data in two places is what to do when you suddenly discover that
>they are not actually the same?

Do the same thing you do when you find that the that a PATH_SIG SKI points
to a CERT for an ASN that does not match the ASN in the PATH_SIG.

Proceed from there ... Problem is no different... The data meant to
validate the PATH, does not match the PATH.
Dougm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email