IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] Signed vs unsgned and bgp best path decision

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Fri, 23 March 2012 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
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 E8AFD21E803C for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.427, BANG_GUAR=0.939, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 dkfdieAJ6q+Y for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E66921E8024 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbtb4 with SMTP id tb4so2266281obb.31 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=61r2zkPOpzFRkHwZlBIvtKQPMj4vwBsBW8Fr//67raM=; b=zQripyiPnNyVkEAbLCHk8WLTvdQz0cCkEysU3lM0vOPfiv/yPVEP3X4ck0K10LmcI6 hEKTYBHaU/t27GhPNphy7Aze1f2uI22JGGgC1GAaGmnudARPCsPVuev0yNyumG0qkKL7 n9Jh9Ee7GILXQ5f7kQfe8fKmyFU9rG/Iq91i5XoYYZtsmGvKQKF+osGj17Czp13Vp4MY zYG++uZXubOBbFn2bu9TDZsX2RzJOV9uShIkOOBm0v1KOHxI2RCwKp69iZMFxxhaxEdF FouxFfW+hGavU16+8dillfifjtF7YzM1GDraClDdHOQbK1q+Pn7Y+9rTyvhzu7BN//YS XKtQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.85.39 with SMTP id e7mr12288373obz.51.1332465960163; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.182.80.137 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F6BB594.5040202@raszuk.net>
References: <19249.1332451876@x37.NIC.DTAG.DE> <4F6BB594.5040202@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:26:00 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: BWJYEtI12yFLYXxZaSlEnYCXq3M
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaZBWFWxCVBDLMnGn+SypnObRzsLH8hCGHB=8tStCkQg4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: robert@raszuk.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "sidr@ietf.org list" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Signed vs unsgned and bgp best path decision
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: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:26:01 -0000

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> By chaos I meant complete autonomous selection of what paths are preferred
> to be chosen as best on an AS by AS basis. In the case of mixed SIGNED and

how is the above any different that what happens today? (inside a
single ASN, each router decides what it thinks is 'best', hopefully
with a coordinated policy across all devices, but ... that is not
guaranteed!)

> UNSIGNED paths being consider in this _local_ decision as you stated it
> seems to me just like it is the case with bad uncorrelated policies more
> harm can be accomplished then good.

sure... should someone say: "ACHTUNG!! OPENZ PEEPERZ!! USE THE SAME
POLICY ON ALL DEVICES!!" ?

I think, I thought, I hope that the above message is (perhaps less
comically) stated to all network engineers when they graduate and get
their striped hats... (so thus NOT a required statement in an RFC-like
document)

-chris

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status