Re: [Sidrops] New Version Notification for draft-ymbk-sidrops-ov-egress-00.txt

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Fri, 04 January 2019 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <job@ntt.net>
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 2FFAC130E8B for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:59:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 SwVeYQQe7G_e for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:59:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3.mlpsca01.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail3.mlpsca01.us.to.gin.ntt.net [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:3::22]) (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 5542C130E85 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:59:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail3.mlpsca01.us.to.gin.ntt.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <job@ntt.net>) id 1gfUgy-0006Ds-6B (job@us.ntt.net) for sidrops@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2019 18:59:37 +0000
Received: by mail-oi1-f178.google.com with SMTP id i6so31114895oia.6 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Jan 2019 10:59:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcINy7/VZbnXuMXDfjI87ceC8X4SAkPJo+E8Mxlb2HZihKZRaiL bf6ViyoKda06amiEkdpSx7KfkufXVV1pLLgD4URQ5g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6ltgXO03Y6NKy+8pMd7RqkdgtON21GPhyFjbUWML1hVahXyelgvacOxuqEGf8f6HTsDJQQYM53c6ms18lRzXM=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4393:: with SMTP id u19mr1685331oiv.99.1546628375120; Fri, 04 Jan 2019 10:59:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a2b8db87-cf36-f122-bcf8-fb8b2c69de8e@foobar.org> <7284.1546615914@x59.NIC.DTAG.DE>
In-Reply-To: <7284.1546615914@x59.NIC.DTAG.DE>
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 21:59:24 +0300
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACWOCC86sDkFX7xTDEnLFoV9iugkyf_=75X1D3GVKD+wf5BP7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACWOCC86sDkFX7xTDEnLFoV9iugkyf_=75X1D3GVKD+wf5BP7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ruediger Volk <rv@nic.dtag.de>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e630d4057ea67aa8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/k-1nrlxBFhtnWDRxVZql_tYzZnM>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] New Version Notification for draft-ymbk-sidrops-ov-egress-00.txt
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: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 18:59:40 -0000

Hi,

I’m appreciative the authors took the initiative for this draft. I’d like
this to be a working group item.

Kind regards,

Job

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 18:35 Ruediger Volk <rv@nic.dtag.de> wrote:

> Nick Hilliard wrote:
>   > internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote on 03/01/2019 21:55:
>   > >     It is useful fpr RPKI-based Origin Validation to classify and
> mark
>   > >     prefixes for all ingress, redistribution, and egress policies.
> For
>   > >     egress policy, it is important that the classification uses the
>   > >     effective origin AS of the processed route, which may
> specifically be
>   > >     altered by the commonly available knobs such as removing private
> ASs,
>   > >     confederation handling, and other modifications of the origin AS.
>   >
>   > good point.  Are there any bgp stacks which currently implement this?
> all implementations relevant for my network (NOT an empty set) do NOT
> conform.
>
> I guess the better question is:
> which implementation actually do the right thing?
> (congrats to the implementor!)
>
> (and the next: what are the planned fixes?)
> The draft does not change ROV, it just asks that application
> in certain circumstance MUST be correct - that seem to be very
> easy to neglect.
>
> Most thinking about ROV application (and controlling correctnes of
> route announcements) tends to focus on ingress policy.
> I started late to seriously look at the egress - but I take
> the robustnes principle serious - and in security matters
> essentially the "be conservative" part applies.
>
> When I started to consider requirements for my egress filtering
> I hit the interesting cases, and immediately thought
> "implementors most likely are missing these [corner?] cases"
>
> Ruediger
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> Sidrops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops
>