Hi,
I read v09. No objections only minor comments:
line 102: BGPsec need*s* *to* be spoken only
line 104: s/by small edge routers/by resource constrained edge routers/
line 119: *see* [RFC4271]
line 159: s/..../etc./
lines 200-206 seem redudant to lines 208-213
line 202 s/smallish/resource constrained/
line 215: I don't know where the 84% comes from, I suppose it's just a
more or less arbitrary illustration of "vast majority". I would remove
the number.
line 234: I would be more explicit: "How this is used in routing is up
to the operator's local policy, similar to origin validation [RFC6811]."
lines 243-250: This paragraph confused me. What about:
Operators should be aware that controlling Invalid announcements by
local preference might be delusive. Local preference affects only routes
to the same set of destinations. Consider having a Valid announcement
from neighbor V for prefix 10.0.0.0/16 and an Invalid announcement for
10.0.66.0/24 from neighbor I. If the local policy on a router is
configured to accept Invalid announcements, then both routes will be
installed, no matter of the value of local preference.
(Btw, I suppose that routes to .666 will be discarded anyway ;)
line 252: It sounds that only edge routers are allowed to speak BGPsec.
I would weaken and say "Validation of signed paths is usually deployed
at the eBGP edge."
line 292: s/BGPSEC_Path/BGPsec_Path/
lines 288-295: The paragraph seems to mix transparent operation and the
question of validation. What about:
A route server is usually 'transparent'. To operate transparently in an
environment in which the route server connects BGPsec-enabled peers, the
route server needs to run BGPsec as well. This implies that the route
server creates signatures per client including its own AS in the
BGPsec_Path and the target ASes. However, increasing the AS hop count
reduces the likelihood of best path selection. See 2.2.2 of
[I-D.ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server]. To overcome this problem, the route
server uses pCount of zero to not increase the effective AS hop count.
Furthermore, a BGPsec-aware route server needs to validate the incoming
BGPsec_Path but should not drop invalids. In case the client speaks
BGPsec the route server should just forward updates to clients which
then validate . In case the client does not speak BGPsec, the route
server reconstructs the AS_PATH and may signal the validation outcome
using communities.
line 300: s/Routers should default to this knob disallowing pCount 0./Routers
should disallow pCount 0 by default./
line 346: I would rephrase: "Operators should deploy servers that
provide time service, such as [RFC5905], to client routers."
Cheers
matthias
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> It is a short document. The sentences are not complicated. It reads quickly.
>
> There’s been little/no wg comment on this, certainly no controversy, over the
> lifetime of the draft.
>
> But still.
>
> Please. Pretty please. Pretty please with sugar on top. Pretty please with
> a cherry on top.
>
> Could we get some feedback that this document is ready for publication?
>
> —Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Sandra Murphy <sa...@tislabs.com> wrote:
>
> > No responses at all.
> >
> > Come on folks. It’s a short document, like Chris says.
> >
> > You should be able to read and comment without much trouble.
> >
> > —Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs
> >
> > On Jun 1, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Chris Morrow <morr...@ops-netman.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Howdy WG folks,
> >> Please take this note as the start of the 2wk WGLC period for:
> >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-07>
> >>
> >> Abstract:
> >> "Deployment of the BGPsec architecture and protocols has many
> >> operational considerations. This document attempts to collect and
> >> present the most critical and universal. It is expected to evolve as
> >> BGPsec is formalized and initially deployed."
> >>
> >> This is a relatively short document, 8 pages, full of wonder and
> >> excitement! I hope that the wg members have read it (it's been through
> >> 8+ revisions) and that they will re-read it quickly, provide comments
> >> as appropriate and ideas on preparedness for publication or not.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for you time and attention to this matter,
> >>
> >> -Chris
> >> co-chair-persona
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> sidr mailing list
> >> sidr@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> >
>
>
--
Dr. Matthias Waehlisch
. Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST
. Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
.. mailto:m.waehli...@fu-berlin.de .. http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl
:. Also: http://inet.haw-hamburg.de .. http://www.link-lab.net
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
