netsec-sig - Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons
Subject: Internet2 Network Security SIG
List archive
- From: "Montgomery, Douglas (Fed)" <>
- To: "" <>
- Subject: Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 17:37:12 +0000
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nist.gov; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nist.gov; dkim=pass header.d=nist.gov; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=P+aeYOeMHRimy/7WejjwyZ+yb7XexIInsLRN1vD2d6s=; b=XMwgSbZ1NkNMavBOCkdiXF6quGNDy39LwO2HeKP+tw/RfVoJIDJ8G96HkSCdd/hgI3s8aQ91guScmMCCiG16eJhfAC9w+izpXDKt3PmBAosBqsEpwemZ9JhKKlv2SD/XCn/A1FxQUsAITDlndx9m88YQAauEXiRcz+zElCnvU5Of0nSqzlh5QhevZd4jWQnfqDQUYGmvvsuM4noxbCQHxU2yK7pS9WOyy3+oMyMJf5F27A2aIUGGZOrSJHRE8DyotSpkvN7kzYv0aOKX50IT/Jb/jfftgqRJ7j1TRbFwZI469x3aa8mN2bQd3JuHBdGX/MkHYWnCtSFi62GpqxlkVw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=XGU7GVlrBgot9BUeFKzJP3cpxw9jwXtFWQM9AFIrN3Rp0kwd88shGLtw87n1DpPl38VGJr7/4kGe6v14wkKBgax/irc2/mlKqOoAXFFZOhwRIri8Y5dwQf2+/47vm9oSlGcK4JMvi4X9sDtpldH2bfyzVMvipCox3BI0OW3OkJ0VfkQPDnH+LTyf7FYuFV8Hzpybf6afRqE28DCsdDBMn+0RMmBh9pYtsmvNlP9lF/rGpin0PV90Ln9KI/sYpE+MvUH2oDUdSaYJotlIQczu+IVjwyzckMurdKhjI7DxIscxDnPNAciyBnnEBNmoziy8JpqNJQH2om2p/j6ziS7Vgw==
Ah, I see, you are thinking of someone opting-in for ROA based bogon filtering, but not general RPKI based route origin validation and filtering.
It is a sad enough state of affairs right now that we have 5 trust anchors, I don’t want 10.
I think from the RIR’s perspective, this is a RPKI-ROV value add (i.e., you get bogon filtering for free with the same infrastructure). That is, an incentive to enable RPKI ROV. If part of the rationale here is an incentive model, I doubt that the RIRs would be interested in making the bogon list a separate TAL.
dougm -- Doug Montgomery, Manager Internet & Scalable Systems Research @ NIST
From:
<> on behalf of David Farmer <>
I interpret the proposal as APNIC issuing AS0 ROAs for only it's unallocated space, not the other RIR's unallocated space, and maybe the IANA reserved space.
I was thinking a separate TAL would simplify the opt-in or opt-out. Or, maybe that is too big of a stick. Otherwise, as an operator, how would I separate these unallocated AS0 ROAs from resource holders AS0 ROAs, or maybe there is another way to do that?
I was thinking IANA could issue a TAL with AS0 ROAs for the IANA reserved space as appropriate. Then the RIRs issue TALs with AS0 ROAs for their unallocated space, separate from the TALs for their allocated space.
But, I have really worked with the validator tools yet, so I'd be interested in other opinions.
Thoughts?
Thanks
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:48 AM "Montgomery, Douglas (Fed)" <> wrote:
-- =============================================== |
- [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, David Farmer, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, Montgomery, Douglas (Fed), 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, David Farmer, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, Montgomery, Douglas (Fed), 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, David Farmer, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, Dale W. Carder, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, David Farmer, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, Montgomery, Douglas (Fed), 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, David Farmer, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, Brad Fleming, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, Montgomery, Douglas (Fed), 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, Dale W. Carder, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, David Farmer, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, Montgomery, Douglas (Fed), 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, David Farmer, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, John Dundas, III, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, David Farmer, 08/09/2019
- Re: [Security-WG] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons, Montgomery, Douglas (Fed), 08/09/2019
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.