Re: [Sidrops] [WGLC] draft-sidrops-bgpsec-validation-signaling-03 - ends 25/August/2020

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

of course, i have no idea what the authors meant

> 1) I think some of the friction here is the use of eBGP in the
> document. This particular quote:
>    (section 4)
>     "(including a trusted EBGP peer for
>    instance controlled by the same operator as lined out in Section 3)"
>    PERHAPS this means 'confed boundary' not 'eBGP' ?

yes, confed is ebgp.  but there are providers with multiple ASs which
might trust eachother, e.g. the classic 70[1-4]

> I think leaking this outside your ibgp (or confed) boundary changes
> from having a simple metric system to a mess.
>   If you want this for internal debug/metrics great.
>   If you want your iBGP neighbors to perform validation on the routes
> because the edge-speaker skipped out on that... ok.
>   If you want to send this knowledge along to your external peers, no.
> Why wouldn't they just perform BGPSEC validation on their own?

lack of horsepower, expecially as the use case seems to be bgpsec

randy