On May 30, 2012, at 8:02 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote:
Right, and agreed (see formally an attack above). But to repeat my further
point, if the AS_PATH is present (even if not secured): at least there's
scope for a
network operator on the receiving end to tolerate the validation failure
as regular ol' wg member
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of John G.
Scudder [j...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:21 PM
To: Matt Lepinski
Cc: sidr@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim
Roque,
Yes, there has been some confusion about AS4_Path, I think my text in
the protocol draft (both the current version, but especially in previous
versions) is in part responsible for this.
I agree that even if we included AS_Path in BGPSEC update messages
BGPSEC speakers MUST support
[added IDR to cc]
On May 30, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
...
About extensibility - as you say, any new segment type not built into
implementations would result in fatal errors. So any new segment type would
need to be built into implementations before use. The question then
Right, and agreed (see formally an attack above). But to repeat my further
point, if the AS_PATH is present (even if not secured): at least there's
scope for a
network operator on the receiving end to tolerate the validation failure and
use
the route anyway, if desired. In the case where
On May 22, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Matt Lepinski wrote:
Other than confeds are there any other potentially open issues related to the
removal of AS_Path?
(I think this just recapitulates what I said at the interim, but maybe it's
worth saying again for the list.)
Philosophically, the thing that
well, actually, the discussion in april was walking around many of
the implications thereof. it is hard to discuss do we keep/replace
AS[4]_PATH as it is abstract and draws deep philosophical discourse
with no hard handles on technical decision points.
I think you should remove the [4]
i agree. but every time i say AS_PATH someone whacks me with AS4_PATH.
maybe this is why i like the NO_EXPLICIT_PATH :)
well, you are normally consistent at asking people to read the documents :-).
r.
randy
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Randy Bush
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6:09 PM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun
In the interim in San Diego, there were requests (from
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:19 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
However, in order to gain any benefit from the location, we probably need to
publicize the interim on the NANOG list, though the window for doing it
before travel plans are made is probably closing/closed.
Wasn't
there have been no comments on list to confed and aliasing. may we
call them done?
Can you expound more what you mean by aliasing above? Do you mean
local-as, etc.
yep
randy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
On May 23, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
there have been no comments on list to confed and aliasing. may we
call them done?
Can you expound more what you mean by aliasing above? Do you mean
local-as, etc.
yep
That's strange. Why doesn't the following comment to the list back in
Can you expound more what you mean by aliasing above? Do you mean
local-as, etc.
yep
That's strange. Why doesn't the following comment to the list back in
March of this year count as no comments on list to ... aliasing?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg04093.html
it
On May 23, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Can you expound more what you mean by aliasing above? Do you mean
local-as, etc.
yep
That's strange. Why doesn't the following comment to the list back in
March of this year count as no comments on list to ... aliasing?
Can you expound more what you mean by aliasing above? Do you
mean local-as, etc.
yep
That's strange. Why doesn't the following comment to the list back
in March of this year count as no comments on list to ...
aliasing?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg04093.html
it
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy,
Sandra [sandra.mur...@sparta.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 6:27 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun
Agenda deadline is Wed
-chair
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy,
Sandra [sandra.mur...@sparta.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 6:27 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun
Agenda deadline
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun
Agenda deadline is Wed 23 Jun (day after tomorrow).
Please send suggestions to the list.
--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr
Melnikov
Cc: sidr@ietf.org; Murphy, Sandra
Subject: Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun
On May 22, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Hi WG,
On 22 May 2012, at 07:08, Murphy, Sandra sandra.mur...@sparta.com wrote:
An eagle eye reader points out that the agenda
[sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy, Sandra
[sandra.mur...@sparta.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:05 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun
Potential agenda items for the 6 Jun interim meeting.
The agenda needs to be announced two weeks
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun
Agenda deadline is Wed 23 Jun (day after tomorrow).
Please send suggestions to the list.
--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr
In my opinion the biggest open issue in the bgpsec protocol draft is the
confederation issue that we discussed at the previous interim. (That is,
if we don't include AS4_Path or AS_Path in a bgpsec signed update, then
we need to somehow encode the information that would be in the
However, I didn't think that everyone in the room for the last interim
was on-board with this. ^logical
well, i definitely look forward to reading a bright(er) idea on list.
randy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
In addition to the items suggested so far, I think we should also spend some
time on
performance considerations and resource sizing requirements for a BGPSEC router.
Some of the performance and resource sizing questions are:
Q1: What is an acceptable convergence time after a BGPSEC peering
, 2012 6:05 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun
Potential agenda items for the 6 Jun interim meeting.
The agenda needs to be announced two weeks ahead of time, which is next
Wednesday.
Please send suggested topics to the list. Below are two
Potential agenda items for the 6 Jun interim meeting.
The agenda needs to be announced two weeks ahead of time, which is next
Wednesday.
Please send suggested topics to the list. Below are two suggestions to spark
the discussion.
(1) AS_PATH
There was one agenda topic that we never directly
26 matches
Mail list logo
