Re: [Sidrops] Which 8210-bis error code should be used?

Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org> Thu, 01 June 2023 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jayb@hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.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 EA099C151B01 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 08:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q_Y2higBOt74 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 08:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net (braeburn.org [12.0.1.25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29436C15106C for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 08:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CD07841CB6; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:19:41 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <25720.46861.482040.787946@hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 15:19:41 +0000
From: Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org>
To: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <A40A6EDF-7DF6-4085-9274-CB76122DB1D9@nlnetlabs.nl>
References: <SA1PR09MB8142523FA03AC4EA6E0E014E847C9@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <SA1PR09MB814235BE0566A5C6935CF5B184439@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <SA1PR09MB814231707524646D651B69B884439@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <ZGs5bFRjPLnyL2Jd@diehard.n-r-g.com> <25708.55138.924074.242182@hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net> <ZG2Vobyxl/gPEfCU@diehard.n-r-g.com> <20230524100558.452d4caf@smaug.local.partim.org> <ZG3bN1p4EzSn4XIS@diehard.n-r-g.com> <CAMFGGcDCpQDYNbYKLEp+iT4rx_FNLoWkdNmET8tH1JdQpgi5XQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2v8ghzypr.wl-randy@psg.com> <20230524152102.5fdfd8f0@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl> <A40A6EDF-7DF6-4085-9274-CB76122DB1D9@nlnetlabs.nl>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 27.2 (i386-portbld-freebsd12.2)
Reply-To: Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org>
X-GPG-Fingerprint: DDDB 542E D988 94D0 82D3 D198 7DED 6648 2308 D3C0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/sD2X8z1bG4jm8KugN3CPxpcM6UM>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Which 8210-bis error code should be used?
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 01 Jun 2023 15:20:44 -0000

On 24-May-2023, Tim Bruijnzeels writes:
 > I understand that there are differences. But, is it a big enough problem if a provider that is only used for one AFI, is also authorised for the other? Enough so to warrant the complexity in the profile and validation?
 > 

I agree with the others in this thread who have argued that the
complications required by making ASPA be AFI-aware are too steep a
price to pay.  

Let's keep things simple and remove afiLimit.  The ASPA for any AS
with non-congruent v4 and v6 provider sets should simply list the
union of those two sets.  Very little leak detection / prevention
capability will be lost in the process.

Thanks.

						Jay B.