Re: [Sidrops] draft-sidrops-rpkimaxlen

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 21 February 2019 10:58 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 51AD3130F19 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 02:58:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 g_MCd2lZqVQt for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 02:58:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F5721276D0 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 02:58:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1gwm46-0000Eg-AL; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 10:58:54 +0000
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 19:58:51 +0900
Message-ID: <m2r2c1tnkk.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Matthias Waehlisch <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de>
Cc: sidrops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1902211050410.21892@mw-x1>
References: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1902211050410.21892@mw-x1>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/OhwDzhWF4loR44-AoXF2ZUGwG-c>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] draft-sidrops-rpkimaxlen
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: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 10:58:59 -0000

>   The problem analysis in the draft is misleading.

you are too polite

>   The problem is not the usage of the max length field. Even without a 
> max length field, a "forged-origin subprefix hijack" may occur easily. 
> For example, a minimal, more specific ROA has been created, and the 
> prefix is currently not announced by the origin AS configured in the 
> ROA.

yep

>   The draft implicitly suggests: "Only create ROAs for prefixes that are 
> currently announced." I'm not sure whether the WG has consensus about 
> that.

that'll be great for all the make before break scenarios: ddos
mitigation, provider switching, ...

>   The draft is expired. I suggest to leave it expired because it leads 
> to incorrect conclusions

yep

randy