Subject: [RPSEC] A Call for A Reasonable Compromise on Securing the AS Path

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:06:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

Y'all:

I've seggested, in the text of several emails, that there are a number of 
ways forward on the BGP security requirements draft. IMHO, we aren't going 
to reach concensus on the issue of "what security means in the cotext of 
the AS Path." Well, maybe the next couple days will tell us, but I'm 
assuming no such concensus will be possible.

I believe the two rational ways forward, as a WG are:

-- Build the requirements "loose," so they will fit either definition of 
"securing the AS Path."

-- Simply include two different options in this area, and any other area 
where there's enough contention and no apparent concensus.

I'm thinking of the first case being something like:

--

Any proposed security mechanism MUST be able to verify:

  -- x
  -- y
  -- z

Any proposed security mechinism SHOULD be able to verify:

  -- x
  -- y
  -- z

Proposed security mechanisms MAY assert more security than is outlined 
here. Any such claims SHOULD be justified and defended in the context of 
the security proposal draft(s).

--

The other option seems to be something like this:

Any proposed security mechanism MUST support one of two mechanisms to 
verify/validate the AS Path:

  -- Method A

  -- Method B

--

Either of these is fine with me, but I believe we've been mired in the 
argument over the AS Path, specifically, far too long than is healthy, and 
we should try to find a way forward. As we encounter other areas where 
there is a strong argument preventing concensus, we should possibly 
consider this sort of option again, and simply try to reach a concensus 
that we can't reach concensus, and should find more than one "subconcensus" 
to place in the document.

I believe this sort of step is unusual, but I also believe there is too 
much at stake, in terms of future work, to leave this argument open, and 
simply not progress the draft.

If the AD's have any comment on this possibility as a procedure, or if Tony 
would like to chime in, I would appreciate it.

:-)

Russ

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

---

From: Tony Tauber <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:55:00 -0500

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Russ White wrote:

> Y'all:
>
> I've seggested, in the text of several emails, that there are a
> number of ways forward on the BGP security requirements draft. IMHO,
> we aren't going to reach concensus on the issue of "what security
> means in the cotext of the AS Path." Well, maybe the next couple
> days will tell us, but I'm assuming no such concensus will be
> possible.

> If the AD's have any comment on this possibility as a procedure, or
> if Tony would like to chime in, I would appreciate it.

Yes, we need to figure out how to move forward.

I know there has been a lot of back and forth already but more than
one person has indicated that the current threads have become
indigestible.
So, to try and encourage more diversity of opinion here,
I'd like to ask everyone who's motivated to (really) succinctly
indicate what is wrong with the current draft.  Please stick to
textual citations and/or specific suggested replacement.
(If you'd like, submit an entire replacement, of course.)

Please also refrain from imputation about what another would have us
do or believe (eg. "some would say...") or what someone else's
motivation might be.  Please also refrain from hyper-verbose output
and strained metaphors.

We've gotten way past the point of productivity lately.

Thanks,

Tony

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:43:16 -0800

Russ, folks-

 I'm in the process of catching up on the discussion on the mailing list.
 You can expect to hear from me or Bill today or tomorrow.
 
-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:11:23 +0100

<inline>

From: "Tony Tauber" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: [RPSEC] A Call for A Reasonable Compromise on Securing the
AS Path
<snip>

> (If you'd like, submit an entire replacement, of course.)
Abstract

...  While securing the information transmitted between two BGP speakers
is a relatively easy technical matter, ...

I disagree.  Currently BGP offers only MD5 which from my understanding
of security is inadequate.  And there is much work in TCPM which cites
BGP as its driving force which has revealed to me many holes in TCP.
Securing the transport may be easier than establishing trust for a
lengthy AS_PATH but I see it as the fundamental first step and should
come first in the requirements, not be relegated to the last chapter as
if it were an afterthought.  The requirements should specify the need
for an MD5 replacement and should cite the TCPM work.  (I suspect many
experts in BGP and its operation will not know of the loopholes in TCP
so any security solution should point those out and identify what  if
anything can be done).

Tom Petch