IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] WGLC draft-sidr-rpki-rtr - take 2?

Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com> Thu, 07 April 2011 04:28 UTC

Return-Path: <bew@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC4B28C0E9 for <sidr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 21:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.544
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ul6xSw66tRi6 for <sidr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 21:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBF228C0CF for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 21:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bew@cisco.com; l=1068; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1302150607; x=1303360207; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=cN3o5h/zC7zchHVcQ9rzxWx1v/vMxTOPPAMR7zANLsg=; b=JGoBGJxl5GBlfvbScWeJNZncT2AMqZiRu1VqRBx4ybsTNjVL9bGBfUQr ovZDmMMTT+qalb1PzYcq8Ffb0pWmjSTjDa8lZzOVEZqVn7/x707Aklf12 6+pHtiYMhvueRNilfmYRRWLwEMaDI/CHOrdZxJCDpiFcZnids9wWmn3L7 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAHA9nU2rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbACmAXeIeZ1pnHCFbQSFUId1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,315,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="332218332"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2011 04:30:04 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-214.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-214.cisco.com [10.32.244.214]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p374U39t018098; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 04:30:04 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2tyea7urr.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:30:03 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8BE1C346-6214-4343-9E46-BFA8D96E4B6C@cisco.com>
References: <AANLkTimq3hcdK7-f_Pa9sWJJOTzF_GBLcYu36sB3WszN@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfn_ZRQNQx0QLV7fJa8DDeqMa=yRqWUH4krMHD@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinV88U3cF6z51eNtPeF-xKG1aWVgALd06CPq4kE@mail.gmail.com> <m2d3l6cj2l.wl%randy@psg.com> <289DB32D-D175-49DE-AA82-100407F64C23@juniper.net> <Pine.WNT.4.64.1104012156360.4612@mw-PC> <20110401210506.GA3082@juniper.net> <Pine.WNT.4.64.1104021120430.4612@mw-PC> <20110404083237.GA1860@juniper.net> <FFD0D281-AA3C-4CF2-8AF2-E1A2FE0A53A0@tcb.net> <20110404125015.GA3277@juniper.net> <BANLkTi=eZ=pQ2gJfiPBfeb4frH8Tncempw@mail.gmail.com> <m21v1i9ha8.wl%randy@psg.com> <BF88D659-1BE5-4DD2-AB24-7A113360DF37@cisco.com> <m2tyea7urr.wl%randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC draft-sidr-rpki-rtr - take 2?
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 04:28:24 -0000

On Apr 6, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

>> Getting a new application (such as the rtr protocol) specifying
>> hmac-md5 mandatory to implement through a Secdir review and then the
>> Security ADs just won't happen. The only exception I can think of is
>> if there were no possible alternatives, and that's obviously not the
>> case here.
> 
> with AO not implemented on any servers, routers not having ssh
> libraries, and this being a server to router protocol, what are the
> alternatives?
> 
> randy

I'm surprised IPsec hasn't been mentioned in this thread ... was it previously discussed and rejected? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's common for BGP routers to support IPsec and servers definitely support IPsec. On the router side, one or two IPsec sessions to servers should not be a burden. I'm less sure of the server IPsec scaling properties, but I would expect a LINUX or BSD kernel to have the scaling issues as were discussed earlier in this thread regarding SSH but I'm no expert here.

Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email