Subject: Re: [sidr] working group adoption call for draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-01

From: Sebastian spies <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 09:50:13 +0200

Hi all,

I support this Internet draft to be adopted as GROW working group document.

Best regards,
Sebastian Spies

> Sandra Murphy <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Mittwoch, 27. April 2016 14:11
> The authors have requested working group adoption for 
> draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-01, "Signaling Prefix Origin 
> Validation Results from a Route-Server to Peers”.
>
> This message starts an adoption call that will end in two weeks on 11 
> May 2016.
>
> Please respond on the list to say whether you support adoption of this 
> work as a working group work item AND whether you will participate in 
> the discussion.
>
> Remember that working group consensus to adopt the work needs 
> responses, not just absence of objection, so speak up.
>
> The draft is available at 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-01
>
> —Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

---

From: Arnaud Fenioux <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 10:54:30 +0200

Hi all,

I support the adoption of this work as a working group work item and I will participate in the discussion.
(I’m also one of the authors).

Regards,

--
Arnaud Fenioux
Network Engineer - FranceIX

> On 2 May 2016, at 09:50, Sebastian spies <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
>> Sandra Murphy Mittwoch, 27. April 2016 14:11
>> The authors have requested working group adoption for draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-01, "Signaling Prefix Origin Validation Results from a Route-Server to Peers”.
>> 
>> This message starts an adoption call that will end in two weeks on 11 May 2016.
>> 
>> Please respond on the list to say whether you support adoption of this work as a working group work item AND whether you will participate in the discussion.
>> 
>> Remember that working group consensus to adopt the work needs responses, not just absence of objection, so speak up.
>> 
>> The draft is available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-01
>>

---

From: Aris Lambrianidis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:41:14 +0200

Greetings,

As a co-author, I support the adoption and will participate in the discussion.

Kind regards,
Aris Lambrianidis

> On 02 May 2016, at 10:54, Arnaud Fenioux <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 09:32:47 -0400

Hello all,

LACNIC has worked on three projects involving RPKI-enabling IXPs [0]. We
certainly support adoption of this document as a WG item and will
participate in the discussion.

Thanks!

-Carlos

[0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fmejia-opsec-origin-a-country-02

---

From: Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:55:36 +0200

Hi,

I believe this is useful work and support adoption. Happy to contribute to the discussion where I can.

Tim

> On 02 May 2016, at 15:32, Carlos M. Martinez <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
>

---

From: "Borchert, Oliver (Fed)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 20:43:47 +0000

Hi,

I support working group adoption,

Oliver

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 06:54:11 -0400

Support adoption.  Will participate in discussion.   Important to getting
deployment (IMO). 

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: sidr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sandra Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:12 AM
To: sidr
Cc: Sandra Murphy
Subject: [sidr] working group adoption call for
draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-01

The authors have requested working group adoption for
draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-01, "Signaling Prefix Origin
Validation Results from a Route-Server to Peers".

This message starts an adoption call that will end in two weeks on 11 May
2016.

Please respond on the list to say whether you support adoption of this work
as a working group work item AND whether you will participate in the
discussion.

Remember that working group consensus to adopt the work needs responses, not
just absence of objection, so speak up.

-Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:51:54 -0400

(as a working group person)

I think it's an interesting topic to discuss, I'm a little worried that:
"Because the third party said things are 'ok' I'll believe things are ok!"

mostly because I don't see a clear method to ensure that 'third party' has:
  1) up-to-date information
  2) my best interest at heart
  3) current/appropriate configuration

I suppose it's interesting to see another's view of the world, I don't
necessarily want to believe it myself though.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> work as a working group work item AND whether you will participate in the
> discussion.
>
> Remember that working group consensus to adopt the work needs responses,
> not just absence of objection, so speak up.
>

---

From: Matthias Waehlisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 18:01:53 +0200

Hi Chris,

  I'm not sure if I get your point.

On Thu, 5 May 2016, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> I think it's an interesting topic to discuss, I'm a little worried 
> that: "Because the third party said things are 'ok' I'll believe 
> things are ok!"
> 
  Same with RTR cache server.

>   2) my best interest at heart
  If you peer with a route server, you should establish a trust relation 
anyway.

>   3) current/appropriate configuration
  Same with RTR cache erver.

Cheers
  matthias

-- 
Dr. Matthias Waehlisch
.  Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST
.  Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
.. mailto:[email-masked] .. http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl
:. Also: http://inet.haw-hamburg.de .. http://www.link-lab.net

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:30:54 -0400

>   I'm not sure if I get your point.
​i might not either.​

>   Same with RTR cache server.
​except I run the server and can get some data about how updated/etc it is
with respect to collection of roa/etc data.​

>   If you peer with a route server, you should establish a trust relation
​maybe?​ how is an IX different from any direct peering? why would I trust
elbonia telecom over elbonia-ix over myself?
​

> ​but that's something I can control, not trust the right thing happened
> elsewhere (and I can monitor and maintain it)​
>
> Cheers
>   matthias
>
>
> --
> Dr. Matthias Waehlisch

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:16:56 -0400

hey!

On 5/5/16 3:30 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> ​except I run the server and can get some data about how updated/etc it
> is with respect to collection of roa/etc data.​

Not always. In a couple of IXs I know the RTR server is shared and is
provided as a service to the IXs members.

They trust each other enough to do this, so not trusting the route
server would be kind of silly.

In any case, you, personally as an individual IX member, are free to
have any misgivings about the operational expertise of the IX and you
can adjust your BGP configs accordingly (de-prefing whatever you learn
from elbonia-ix, ignoring validation state, overwriting communities). I
just don't see an argument against what the draft proposes in the
scenario you describe.

However, if you dis-trust a particular IX too much, maybe you just
should de-peer them. But we disgress :-)

-Carlos

PS: I loved the name Elbonia, Can I license it from you ? :-)

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 07:51:51 +0900

>   Same with RTR cache server.

i would not load routers from rpki caches i do not own and control

>   If you peer with a route server, you should establish a trust relation 

in my heart i agree with chris, a prudent operator does not outsource
security.

otoh, i also do not think a prudent operator outsources bgp, i.e. uses a
route server.

putting the two together, if you are willing to outsource bgp to a route
server, then outsourcing bgp security to the route server is not much of
a leap.

chris, think of it as shooting yourself in the foot with a two-barrelled
gun instead of one with one barrel.  :)

randy

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:20:37 -0400

> server would be kind of silly.
​sure, but I dont' always use the RS at the IX.​

> should de-peer them. But we disgress :-)

​yea, so... I didn't REALLY want to rathole the conversation. I'm perfectly
happy if consenting adults want to do this, that's cool. I may not? I may
in some places because I can't solve my problem other ways?

I don't think bending things like this is particularly bad, as long as
people understand what they walked into/on.

> PS: I loved the name Elbonia, Can I license it from you ? :-)
​absolutely... Elbonia and Westonia.. they are bad places, (depending on
your perspective of course.. if you are elbonian, you dislike westonians...
and vice/versa) :)​

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:35:05 -0400

Hi!

> i would not load routers from rpki caches i do not own and control

Me neither. Yet people do it. Whether they are going to be majority or
not, time will tell.

> server, then outsourcing bgp security to the route server is not much of

Agree 100%.

> gun instead of one with one barrel.  :)

:-)

-C.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 19:44:49 +0000

> ​sure, but I dont' always use the RS at the IX.​
... and you don't have to trust the RS if you do.

This feel like a prefect being the enemy of the good type discussion --
 you shouldn't use RS, and you should do your own validation. You should
also always brush your teeth and ear yer veggies -- but, we know some
people will not listen to / follow this advice.
Some people do use route servers, and won't do their own validation - I'd
rather that they have the information available to make a decision than
not...

> ​yea, so... I didn't REALLY want to rathole the conversation. I'm
> perfectly happy if consenting adults want to do this, that's cool. I may
> not? I may in some places because I can't solve my problem other ways?
>

Yup.
W

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:33:19 -0400

> rather that they have the information available to make a decision than

100% agree with Warren.

I support the adoption of the document but I suggest to add text to guide
the adopters in the multiple issues that implementing it might arise.

Regards
as

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 07:06:10 +0900

> Some people do use route servers, and won't do their own validation -
> I'd rather that they have the information available to make a decision
> than not...

this glibly glosses over that, by outsourcing origin validation, an
attack vector is introduced.  i presume i do not need to describe it.
so it needs to be big in the sec cons.

randy

---

From: Aris Lambrianidis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 00:28:14 +0200

> so it needs to be big in the sec cons.

Is it bigger than the attack vector allowed for when not doing origin 
validation at all?

Kind regards,
Aris Lambrianidis

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 07:32:13 +0900

> Is it bigger than the attack vector allowed for when not doing origin 

now we're comparing the size of the guns used to shoot yourself in the
foot?

my point was that it needs to go in the sec cons.  not the size of the
type to be used.

randy

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 22:33:46 +0000

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:06 PM Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:

> attack vector is introduced.

Yup.

> i presume i do not need to describe it.

Yup, I fully agree. I had a flag set to mention that, but somehow lost it.
It definitely needs to be stressed -- you really really really should do
your own validation. If, for some reason you cannot / will not, having
someone else doing your validation *might* be better than nothing, but it
also might not be...

W

---

From: Aris Lambrianidis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 00:45:39 +0200

> my point was that it needs to go in the sec cons.  not the size of the

To be clear, I wasn't advocating an opinion, I was providing food for
thought from a different angle.

I think the analogy here is that a new type gun (or as I would see it, 
tool) is provided. As with any gun or tool, security considerations 
certainly need to be addressed.

Kind regards,
Aris Lambrianidis

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 14:32:40 -0400

The adoption discussion showed consensus that the wg wants to adopt this work.

The authors should submit a draft using the usual wg draft naming convention: draft-ietf-sidr-yourtitlehere.txt

(Actually, the adoption discussion was more energetic and productive than I remember seeing in a long time.)