Subject: Re: [sidr] Use cases for RPKI in SIDR

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:58:19 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Terry Manderson wrote:

> This might then be used by the WG and authors of other drafts to ask
> questions pertaining to the completeness, direction, and applicability of
> the work from a clear use case basis.
...
> The draft is attached for your review, and the authors and I would be most
> appreciative if you could read this document and either before, or at, IETF
> 75 provide your comments.

This document is a useful contribution.  My hope is that we will use
this document as a template to generate examples of how to satisfy
each use given a set of validation rules.  From that, we can see if
the validation rules (and the artitecture generally) let us satisfy
the full set of cases we care about.

For the RPKI, sections 3 and 5 are useful.  I have basically ignored
section 4.

On to the specifics:

Observation: Most of the Section 3 cases speak about which routes one
wishes to have accepted (or chosen) and make no explicit statement
about which routes one wants to have rejected.  I think it would be
useful to include such statements, perhaps as "attack" case.  This may
result in an effectively two-dimensional table of cases.

I believe the "partial deployment use cases" of section 5 are critical
to the success of the RPKI, and I think the set of cases here is too
limited.  For instance, a variation on 5.1 ("parent does not do RPKI")
is "other upstream(s) don't do RPKI".  Perhaps we could generate these
by going through the section 3 cases and, for each one, add the
permutations of which parties do and don't support the RPKI.  Sadly,
when combined with the above, that could give us a three dimensional
space to work in, but most of the section 3 cases involve only one
party, so the problem should be tractable.

Perhaps some of this expansion could be rolled into the next revision.

-- Sam

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:12:47 -0700

Hi Sam,

> result in an effectively two-dimensional table of cases.

That will be covered in -02, Just waiting on convergence with my co-authors.

I expect to upload before the deadline.

> party, so the problem should be tractable.

yes.. there is some expansion needed and I don't think _all of it_ will make
it to -02. If you take a look at the origin maps at
http://stats.research.icann.org/bgp/ and then arbitrarily pick a start point
(AS) for RPKI deployment - the permutations swings wildly on what outcome
you might allow for route validity..

For example do you want 8.6.241.0/24 to be a valid route table entry if
AS3356 only creates a ROA for 8.0.0.0/8? (refer to the origin map) in
partial deployment?

So I have been purposefully parsimonious in -02 in that section.

> Perhaps some of this expansion could be rolled into the next revision.

Cheers
Terry