[sidr] No BGPSEC intradomain ?

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 09 April 2012 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 45AB021F8762 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.523
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8T5gs+9yUb0k for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8430421F8495 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19889 invoked by uid 399); 9 Apr 2012 18:50:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? (pbs:m42@mojaklasa.info@ by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 9 Apr 2012 18:50:08 -0000
Message-ID: <4F832F5E.9030903@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:50:06 +0200
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com>, sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
References: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C4930B96182E71@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov> <4F828D6D.10907@raszuk.net> <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C4930B96C507DA@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>, <4F830E75.70606@raszuk.net> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60F6F1533@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
In-Reply-To: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60F6F1533@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [sidr] No BGPSEC intradomain ?
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net
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, 09 Apr 2012 18:50:09 -0000


> And intradomain BGP speakers do not use bgpsec (ebgp sessions only).

I do not understand. How a BGP Update will transit via an AS where each 
router is a real BGP speaker and where as some proposed BGP mandatory 
AS_PATH attribute is not present ?

Are you assuming each AS today is BGP Free with full mesh of MPLS/IP 
tunnel ASBR to ASBR as transport ? Even in this case ASBRs are connected 
directly or indirectly (RRs) via IBGP.

As you proposing to remove AS_PATH selection criteria from best path for 
updates which come over IBGP ? What happens if you need to compare paths 
received over EBGP and IBGP on a given BGP speaker ?

Many thx,