IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Sidrops] draft-sidrops-rpkimaxlen

Matthias Waehlisch <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de> Thu, 21 February 2019 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de>
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 093361276D0 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 02:31:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ymlGzPwmBOzC for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 02:31:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) (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 58FA0130DC2 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 02:31:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.85) for sidrops@ietf.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (envelope-from <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de>) id <1gwldX-000iAR-Db>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:31:27 +0100
Received: from x4e37b68a.dyn.telefonica.de ([78.55.182.138] helo=mw-x1.fritz.box) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.85) for sidrops@ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (envelope-from <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de>) id <1gwldX-001ewH-5a>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:31:27 +0100
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:31:25 +0100
From: Matthias Waehlisch <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de>
To: sidrops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1902211050410.21892@mw-x1>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (WNT 1167 2008-08-23)
X-X-Sender: waehl@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Originating-IP: 78.55.182.138
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/SZ0sNW_o3D7RVYvcJd164_eeXQM>
Subject: [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 10:31:31 -0000

Hi,

  I read the (expired) draft draft-sidrops-rpkimaxlen.

  The problem analysis in the draft is misleading.

  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.

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

  The draft is expired. I suggest to leave it expired because it leads 
to incorrect conclusions, see for example 
https://github.com/DECIX/RPKI/wiki/RPKI-deployment-options



Cheers
  matthias


-- 
Matthias Waehlisch
.  Freie Universitaet Berlin, Computer Science
.. http://www.cs.fu-berlin.de/~waehl

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email