Re: [sidr] BGPSEC proposal to drop AS_PATH [was: Fwd: request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun]

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Russ,

 > Doesn't this also impact 2 octet to 4 octet transition?

I thought about the same but I concluded that it does not. Due to 
inherent day one design of BGP_SEC_PATH which supports 4 octet AS you 
may carry it there as opposed to carry it AS4_PATH attribute.

 > IMHO, this is a huge problem --much larger than we might imagine at
 > this particular moment in time.

I think that the overall assumption is that we will fall back to non-sec 
where ever and for whatever reason needed. With this in mind I am amazed 
to see proponents of BGP Sec not caring about it as the end result will 
be marginal to non BGP Sec deployment result.

For example IBGP speakers will not likely to get upgraded to BGPSec in 
years to come. In traditional ISP this will immediately result in 
downgrade. When you use RR you are a bit better as only RR needs to be 
upgraded, but still this is light years for Internet wide deployment. As 
example I know global SP networks which use full mesh.

I am therefor proposing SIDR overlay as smooth gradual introduction of 
BGP SEC on subset of prefixes yet with full benefits of full blown BGP 
Sec deployment. Maybe just for easy transition ... Of course this 
requires Internet wide encapsulation so those allergic to it will not 
like it :).

Best,
R.

>
>>>> - Extensibility to include new segment types. In principle this is a fairly serious omission, but one can argue that new segment types can't be introduced in practice, since existing implementations will treat them as fatal errors.
>
> Doesn't this also impact 2 octet to 4 octet transition?
>
> IMHO, this is a huge problem --much larger than we might imagine at this
> particular moment in time.
>
> Russ
>