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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 02 September 2020 17:46 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 0ED0D3A0B45 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 FmP1HostnYyr for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
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 C137A3A0943 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
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 1kDWqH-0008Fn-2W; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:46:41 +0000
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 10:46:40 -0700
Message-ID: <m2d034nkan.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Cc: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>, "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLabE9SSPXAXyH5E90E_C0Bi0hjMXkdVX+bt48_QZp=iLjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6A0CA35A-4BA3-4063-BDA8-B93B17636B4B@arrcus.com> <m2blixz67w.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLabE9SSPXAXyH5E90E_C0Bi0hjMXkdVX+bt48_QZp=iLjQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.3 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/UudmFy8rLzcwBvJ7DuWivNh8j9w>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] [WGLC] draft-sidrops-bgpsec-validation-signaling-03 - ends 25/August/2020
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:46:45 -0000

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