Re: [Sidrops] Which 8210-bis error code should be used?

Martin Hoffmann <martin@nlnetlabs.nl> Wed, 24 May 2023 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <martin@nlnetlabs.nl>
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 C4496C14CE3B for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2023 06:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fP1-1rSPqrH8 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2023 06:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.soverin.net (outbound.soverin.net [IPv6:2a10:de80:1:4091:b9e9:2212:0:1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2767C14CEF9 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2023 06:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (c04smtp-lb01.int.sover.in [10.10.4.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4QRBf451nmz2V; Wed, 24 May 2023 13:21:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [10.10.4.100]) by soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4QRBf41g3DzJ5; Wed, 24 May 2023 13:21:16 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1684934476; bh=h+9vQJcV3MROqYmJV1x40q4hf9d+sunJHxow3UnMI3E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=KIWrsvmy2w5DGLPTbFr5DfWk2+QSOMvLvVjYpgJdkPFXi1RHOYT29UrwcY9pCotgu QT0IDzhNbgaVMHS2fxUMunX7lXWRDw9O9Bix3yXgqiGUOwrKe1GN7fCbqm3IkGt8Uk 1sLSvkwnKmkbNscJLHmeg0gOwalDQuwwRZD2CNAiLqp9d41VahVDf6U8LxEjz1BkzN huw6Lk6Oar8ANx7C6fbLN31DsPIlDgAWZYqRDeRx3fG08qIlOkeQG95maxG5PmNiB6 KivkeGqH1yV7fvkEfVbK32la33+HlV9IzwsE8f0cOxK3as7TPOLPbjWQ6IE2TiafR5 BJose9SsYJkhg==
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 15:21:15 +0200
X-Soverin-Authenticated: true
From: Martin Hoffmann <martin@nlnetlabs.nl>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>, SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20230524152102.5fdfd8f0@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <m2v8ghzypr.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <SA1PR09MB8142523FA03AC4EA6E0E014E847C9@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <SA1PR09MB814235BE0566A5C6935CF5B184439@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <SA1PR09MB814231707524646D651B69B884439@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <ZGs5bFRjPLnyL2Jd@diehard.n-r-g.com> <25708.55138.924074.242182@hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net> <ZG2Vobyxl/gPEfCU@diehard.n-r-g.com> <20230524100558.452d4caf@smaug.local.partim.org> <ZG3bN1p4EzSn4XIS@diehard.n-r-g.com> <CAMFGGcDCpQDYNbYKLEp+iT4rx_FNLoWkdNmET8tH1JdQpgi5XQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2v8ghzypr.wl-randy@psg.com>
Organization: NLnet Labs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/Nkr3nU94o1X877koe-y7zbhfV1U>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Which 8210-bis error code should be used?
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 24 May 2023 13:21:25 -0000

Randy Bush wrote:
> perhaps we are responsible for taking a slightly longer term view.
> 
> today, ipv6 routing is simply not congruent with ipv4.  we might wish
> it, but reality bites.

The question is whether the benefit of allowing to express the
difference outweighs its cost, i.e., whether there is an realistic risk
that someone accidentally announces a prefix along a path that wasn’t
meant for this prefix’ address family and, if so, whether that is
worthwhile catching. (I’m assuming hijacking isn’t possible here, which
may be wrong.)

  -- Martin