IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] rfc7607 & multiple ROAs covering same resource

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Tue, 21 March 2017 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jheitz@cisco.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 120A1129C53 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 3YXkpO56TkKH for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A2A6129C48 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2535; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490118998; x=1491328598; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=jnG8GuJWiV+Zdm8Te7S6EMw9IsIlaMemzHhR1l207R8=; b=clE5FX/y6F2Am2Sk7hI/BcmT9ebqhsv7oWwLjvPWP3WNkBmJQYHv2zXH ycAhzI4eeLgM/SmgQxlZwmYVLPlArdqnnyJFcXmRkd2f2cI/mjJueA68T Ex77TP+5KJdoxf0SXkYtsv3RQ4+d8/ZtvOVqv3plQjcBM92DUG9uWK8H7 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CbAQBaaNFY/4wNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1FhgQoHg1uKEJFelUSCDh8LgkKCbEoCgxQ/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRUBAQEBAwEBHwFMCwwEAgEIEQQBAQEBAwsYAgMCJwsUCQgCBAENBQiJfA6MWZ1WAYIqikoBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYEIhUaEb4RbgnyCYgWcUAGGeYtDggSPMohViwkBHziBBFgVQYRXHYFjdYcGK4EDgQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,200,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="400452497"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Mar 2017 17:56:37 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-012.cisco.com (xch-rcd-012.cisco.com [173.37.102.22]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2LHubch020448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:56:37 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-RCD-012.cisco.com (173.37.102.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:56:36 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:56:36 -0500
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: Declan Ma <madi@zdns.cn>, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
CC: "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Sidrops] rfc7607 & multiple ROAs covering same resource
Thread-Index: AQHSokquSLcghRhkE0CIUEYJW7z96KGfvSwAgAAHvQCAAALPgP//x9Ew
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:56:36 +0000
Message-ID: <15c6acae82454db0861f4dddf998669a@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
References: <20170321135423.tye6fyixctuyzzay@Vurt.local> <D0532F66-BDD0-4E08-B7FC-F8555F89CA06@zdns.cn> <20170321155018.ufekfatlgrelgih5@Vurt.local> <44BEFF34-13C2-4660-8439-B46F86E935F2@zdns.cn>
In-Reply-To: <44BEFF34-13C2-4660-8439-B46F86E935F2@zdns.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.154.161.211]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/ZMzUhFxApB1uWysC1rOm8-JNyGs>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] rfc7607 & multiple ROAs covering same resource
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:56:40 -0000

RFC 7607 does use the word "only":

   This allows a resource holder to signal
   that a prefix (and the more specifics) should not be routed by
   publishing a ROA listing AS 0 as the only origin.


https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6483

   In an environment of a collection of valid ROAs, a route's validity
   state is considered to be "valid" if any ROA provides a "valid"
   outcome.  It's validity state is considered to be "invalid" if one
   (or more) ROAs provide an "invalid" outcome and no ROAs provide a
   "valid" outcome.

The ROA for AS 0 provides an "invalid" outcome.
However, the other ROA provides a "valid" outcome.
Therefore, the final outcome is "valid".

Thanks,
Jakob.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sidrops [mailto:sidrops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Declan Ma
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 9:00 AM
> To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
> Cc: sidrops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Sidrops] rfc7607 & multiple ROAs covering same resource
> 
> Job,
> 
> > 在 2017年3月21日，23:50，Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> 写道：
> >
> > Hi Declan,
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:22:36PM +0800, Declan Ma wrote:
> >> [RFC6483] states “A ROA with a subject of AS 0 (AS 0 ROA) is an
> >> attestation by the holder of a prefix that the prefix described in the
> >> ROA, and any more specific prefix, should not be used in a routing
> >> context.”
> >>
> >> I believe this issue bears relevance with how RP software responds to
> >> multiple ROAs existence with ROA 0 included.
> >>
> >> As for the example you provide, if both ROAs have been validated
> >> successfully, it is up to RPs to generate output to BGP speakers.
> >>
> >> Even a ROA with AS 0 doesn’t preclude other valid ROAs, we should not
> >> encourage this operation.
> >
> > How and why would you discourage this, if it is a valid mode of
> > operation? Clarity is king. There may be legitimate use cases for doing
> > this.
> >
> 
> There MAY be legitimate use cases for doing this.
> 
> These cases should be justified before the WG discuss how to update RFC 7607.
> 
> I am open to this operation, hoping to see more detailed context in which you said the owner of the ROAs was
> intentional to do that.
> 
> Declan (Di)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> Sidrops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email