IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] Talk: RPKI Deployment: Status, Challenges and the Learning-Validator

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 21 July 2017 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7FA1124217 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lGk_t-w5ZVpa for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3689131748 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1dYSaH-0007pz-Qb; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:42:50 +0000
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:42:49 +0200
Message-ID: <m2o9ses0au.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011@gmail.com>
Cc: sidrops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5ED572DF-AC77-4F54-92DC-F65C86F4E022@gmail.com>
References: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1707171628150.10844@mw-x1> <5ED572DF-AC77-4F54-92DC-F65C86F4E022@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/6v_DT0lztas71SPgjELNOE4qKDA>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Talk: RPKI Deployment: Status, Challenges and the Learning-Validator
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:42:54 -0000

< pedantry >

> - How we define a ROA to be “wrong” ? One that invalidates routes or
>   one that causes legitimate traffic to be dropped ?

neither.  a roa is 'wrong' when it does not validate up to the iana TA
or the political TA kludge of the season.

a roa may cover but not validate a particular bgp announcement; though
that announcement may be validated by a different roa.

a roa may not validate a particular announcement which it covers for
which there are no other roas.  the roa is neither right nor wrong; it
merely disagrees with the current bgp announcements.  which needs to be
changed is not obviously determinable.

of course there was the work in new mexico a dozen years ago to create
roas to match the bgp table with a bit of delay.  we all laughed.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email