IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] Minor comments on draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-00

Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org> Mon, 07 October 2019 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jayb@oz.mt.att.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 06911120099 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 04:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 JYeBn7OrveNF for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 04:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net (braeburn.org [12.0.1.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1713120052 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 04:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oz.mt.att.com (zoe.cbbtier3.att.net [12.0.1.45]) by hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764A52F061 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 11:56:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by oz.mt.att.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 69C0FA408D0; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 07:56:50 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: emacs 24.3.1 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I); VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Message-ID: <23963.10240.12287.137386@oz.mt.att.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 07:56:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org>
To: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <9579DFEC-6653-4CD2-A4DE-2DC5B7427782@nlnetlabs.nl>
References: <1CF3E143-98E7-4B66-AEE5-02617A639BCC@nlnetlabs.nl> <CAEGSd=AH5hNf4vm=f4ztcMnDDrPLxE-tZoHHjmcWDO7OVo5pxQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2sgo5zad3.wl-randy@psg.com> <9579DFEC-6653-4CD2-A4DE-2DC5B7427782@nlnetlabs.nl>
Reply-To: Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org>
X-GPG-Fingerprint: DDDB 542E D988 94D0 82D3 D198 7DED 6648 2308 D3C0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/9toDpxXoJQ5DhDktyuUk0A2ox4M>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Minor comments on draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-00
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 11:56:52 -0000

I would like to re-emphasize one point Tim made (without diminishing
his others):

Tim Bruijnzeels writes:
 > But whatever the case, if a single object is used this would mean
 > that there is either a complete set of upstream ASNs, or the set is
 > empty - which would mean that all customer-provider checks fall back
 > to "unknown"

It's critical that users of ASPA data operate using a complete set of
an ASN's authorized upstream ASNs.  The simplest way to communicate
such a verifiably-complete set is to use a single object.

Thanks!

					Jay B.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email