On my side, IPv6 support is an obvious MUST and IPv4 is really a SHOULD, i.e., like written below if IPv4 is not supported by SAVNET WG, then there must really be a good reason.
I would expect that all documents are dual-stack though -éric From: savnet <[email protected]> on behalf of Lizhenbin <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 10 May 2022 at 19:16 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: gengnan <[email protected]>, Jari Arkko <[email protected]>, 'Weiqiang Cheng' <[email protected]> Subject: [savnet] IPv6 and/or IPv4//RE: SAVNET WG charter Hi, Regarding the issue of IPv6 and/or IPv4, besides the number of types of existing IGP routing protocols, it should be taken into account whether the IPv4 should be supported for SAVNET if the existing routing protocol, such as ISIS and BGP, can support both IPv4 and IPv6. In the IAB Statement on IPv6 (https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/), the following is stated “ Therefore, networking standards need to fully support IPv6. The IETF as well as other SDOs need to ensure that their standards do not assume IPv4. The IAB expects that the IETF will stop requiring IPv4 compatibility in new or extended protocols. Future IETF protocol work will then optimize for and depend on IPv6. “ I am not sure if the statement should be applied for SAVNET. If YES, in the charter, IPv6 should be the first. Best Regards, Robin From: Dan Li [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 10:05 PM To: gengnan <[email protected]>; 'Weiqiang Cheng' <[email protected]>; Lizhenbin <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [savnet] Regarding reusing existing routing protocols for SAV//RE: SAVNET WG charter Thank Nan for the consideration. My thoughts about these issues are as follows. 1) For IGP, SAV propagation can indeed leverage some existing types of messages of IGP routing protocol, such as advertising the IP prefixes attached to a router. But of course we need to add other types of messages in IGP to support SAV propagation. So I think it is reasonable to extend IGP routing protocol to add the SAV functionality. 2) It is interesting to discuss whether we only need to support IPv6. It is true that the number of existing IGP routing protocols is too many. But if want to defend against IP address spoofing in the entire Internet, we need a reason to exclude IPv4. 3) Since the current solution supports partial deployment, it does not matter that some routers do not run IGP. In this case, we can either assume that manual configuration like ACL-based SAV will be used in these undeployed routers (given that they already use static routing), or just assume that no SAV functionality is enabled in these routers. Best, Dan 发件人: gengnan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 发送时间: 2022年5月10日 17:58 收件人: Weiqiang Cheng <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'Dan Li' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Lizhenbin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: 答复: [savnet] Regarding reusing existing routing protocols for SAV//RE: SAVNET WG charter Hi, It sounds reasonable to put protocol extension work to the corresponding WGs. Here are some thoughts on the extensions of IGP for SAV: a) The propagation manner of SAV messages is different from the original IGP messages. How to make a good separation from existing IGP mechanisms is also a problem. b) Extending all the existing protocols can be a heavy task. Would it be better to focus on pure ipv6 scenarios first? c) Some devices may not run IGP. Instead, some static route rules are configured for packet forwarding. How to enable SAV in these devices can be considered. Best, Nan 发件人: savnet [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Weiqiang Cheng 发送时间: 2022年5月5日 10:22 收件人: 'Dan Li' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Lizhenbin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: Re: [savnet] Regarding reusing existing routing protocols for SAV//RE: SAVNET WG charter Hi, It sounds reasonable. The proposed WG works for the SAVNET specific architecture and solutions and the work related to the existed protocols should be done in the corresponding WGs. The comment for the charter text as follows: OLD: 4) Solutions to implementing SAVNET architecture by defining extensions of existing routing protocols. These will be done in coordination with the WGs supervising those protocols. NEW: 4) Solutions to implementing SAVNET architecture by defining extensions of existing routing protocols. For those, the SAVNET WG will coordinate and collaborate with other WGs as needed. Specific expected interactions include (but may not be limited to): * lsr on OSPF and IS-IS extensions * idr for BGP extensions … B.R. Weiqiang Cheng 发件人: savnet [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Dan Li 发送时间: 2022年5月5日 08:54 收件人: 'Lizhenbin'; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: Re: [savnet] Regarding reusing existing routing protocols for SAV//RE: SAVNET WG charter Hi Robin, Thanks for putting the texts of the WG charter in this email thread, which will help new people who read this email. 1) For inter-domain network. Yes we plan to extend BGP protocol by a new SAFI. We talked with some other people, such as Igor Lubashev from Akami and Keyur Patel from Arrcus, and they share the same idea. I think the high-level architecture design will be done in the SAVNET WG, but the specific protocol extension will go to IDR WG. 2) For intra-domain network. I think we will use the same way as for inter-domain network. The high-level architecture design will be done in the SAVNET WG. Specifical protocol extension to OSPFv2, OSPFv3, IS-IS, BGP SPF, RIFT will go to the corresponding WGs. 3) For wide coverage of different scenarios, I guess we need to extend all the existing routing protocols as mentioned above. Hence, we need an independent WG for the SAVNET usecase/requirements/architecture/management design, while also need to well cooperate with the other corresponding WGs. Best, Dan 发件人: Lizhenbin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 发送时间: 2022年5月5日 0:42 收件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 抄送: Dan Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 主题: Regarding reusing existing routing protocols for SAV//RE: [savnet] SAVNET WG charter Hi Dan and all, In order for convenience, I directly put the text of the charter in the mail. I understand the importance of reusing existing routing protocols for SAV which is described in the charter. But I truly have doubt about it. The following is some thinking: 1. SAV in inter-domain networks: because BGP is the only existing routing protocol for inter-domain networks, does it mean BGP is determined for SAV in inter-domain networks? Because the information distributed for SAV is different from the existing information distributed by BGP, is it appropriate to take use of BGP for SAV? If it is necessary to evaluate it, where is the work to be done, in the SAVNET WG or in the IDR WG? 2. SAV in intra-domain networks: 1) The first issue is the similar as BGP. Are the existing IGPs appropriate for SAV in intra-domain networks? How to evaluate and where to evaluate? 2) There are multiple types of IGPs, ISIS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. If IGP can be used for the SAV, do we extend all these IGPs or only choose one? 3) There is also RIFT and BGP SPF as IGPs. Will RIFT WG and LSVR WG also be involved besides LSR WG? 3. For both SAV in inter-domain networks and in intra-domain network, how many existing routing protocols should be extended? BGP + One or more IGPs? BGP for both inter-domain and intra-domain since BGP-SPF can also be used for intra-domain? Best Regards, Robin Charter for SAVNET Working Group: Source address validation (SAV) is important to mitigate source address spoofing attacks. To improve the effectiveness, SAV mechanisms should be applied as close to the source as possible. Therefore, it is desired to deploy SAV in both intra-domain and inter-domain networks. However, existing SAV mechanisms like uRPF-related technologies may improperly permit spoofed traffic or improperly block legitimate traffic. The “Source Address Validation in Intra-domain and Inter-domain Networks (SAVNET)” working group will define a protocol-independent architecture and procedures to overcome the limitations of existing SAV mechanisms. Specifically, the SAVNET WG will define procedures that allow nodes to accurately determine valid incoming ports for specific source prefixes taking into account information not currently included in routing protocols. The scope of the SAVNET WG includes the SAV function in both intra-domain and inter-domain networks, and the validation of both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The WG is expected to address intra-domain solutions first. SAVNET should avoid packet modification in the data plane. Where possible, existing control and management plane protocols must be used within existing architectures to implement the SAV function. Any modification of or extension to existing architectures, or control or management plane protocols, must be done in coordination with the working groups responsible for the architecture, or control or management plane protocol. The SAVNET WG is chartered for the following list of items: 1) Description of problem statement and use cases for SAVNET, including the requirements that need to be taken into account by the SAVNET architecture. 2) Definition of SAVNET architecture and new procedures. This includes both intra-domain and inter-domain networks. 3) Definition of operation and management mechanisms needed to operate and manage SAV-related configurations. 4) Solutions to implementing SAVNET architecture by defining extensions of existing routing protocols. These will be done in coordination with the WGs supervising those protocols. The SAVNET WG will coordinate and collaborate with other WGs as needed. Specific expected interactions include (but may not be limited to): lsr and idr. From: Dan Li [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:30 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Lizhenbin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [savnet] SAVNET WG charter Thank Robin for the remind. I am sending this email to colleagues in the RTGWG to introduce the SAVNET work. In IETF 113, we held the SAVNET BOF in the INT Area , with a focus on intra-domain and inter-domain source address validation (SAV) technologies. The basic motivation is to overcome the problem of improper block or improper permit in uRPF-based SAV mechanisms. A control-plane solution was presented in the BoF. The basic idea is: 1) each node notifies its attached source prefixes along the real forwarding path, and the routers along the path accordingly build the correct SAV table; 2) the notification messages are processed in the control-plane via a hop-by-hop manner, and various methods are used to reduce the message overhead; 3) following the routing architecture, the notification is divided into an intra-domain part and an inter-domain part. Given that this solution is highly related to routing architecture, after the BoF it was suggested to apply for a WG in the Routing Area. More materials of the BOF can be found from https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/agenda-113-savnet-01. Enclosed please find the drafted WG charter, which will be improved based on the feedback we get from the community. I also hope that RTGWG colleagues who have interest in this topic can join the SAVNET mailing list (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savnet), which will be the main channel for future discussions. Best, Dan 发件人: Lizhenbin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 发送时间: 2022年5月2日 17:34 收件人: Dan Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: RE: [savnet] SAVNET WG charter Hi Dan, Since the BOF was held in the INT area, maybe not all of the experts from the RTG area register the mailing list of SAVNET and they are not aware of the work. I suggest you could forward it to the mailing list of RTGWG and briefly introduce the design concept and progress of the SAVNET work. Best Regards, Zhenbin (Robin) From: savnet [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan Li Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 4:50 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [savnet] SAVNET WG charter Dear colleagues, One month has passed since the SAVNET BOF in IETF 113. In the IESG/IAB meeting, it was concluded that the problem is well-defined and was suggested that SAVNET be moved to the Routing Area. After discussing with the ADs in the Routing Area, we decide to apply for forming a WG with a relatively narrower scope. Specifically, the potential WG will focus on intra-domain and inter-domain SAV mechanisms by extending existing routing protocols. Enclosed please find the drafted WG charter. We would like to get the feedback from our community. Best, Dan
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
