Impact of BGP Filtering on Inter-Domain Routing Policies
draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-04-04
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-02-16
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-01-27
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-11-30
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-11-30
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-11-30
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-11-30
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2015-11-30
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-11-30
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-11-30
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-11-30
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-11-30
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-11-27
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-11-07
|
08 | Camilo Cardona | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-11-07
|
08 | Camilo Cardona | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-08.txt |
2015-10-14
|
07 | (System) | Notify list changed from grow-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats@ietf.org, pds@lugs.com, draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats.shepherd@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-09-11
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | jumped the gun |
2015-09-11
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-09-11
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | good to go. |
2015-09-11
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed |
2015-08-20
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-08-20
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-08-20
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Please add in the proposed text from the SecDir review to address his questions: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05855.html Additionally, I'd like to see the Security Considerations … [Ballot comment] Please add in the proposed text from the SecDir review to address his questions: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05855.html Additionally, I'd like to see the Security Considerations mention a point brought up earlier in the draft, namely that the filtering could cause traffic to be routed back through a path that doesn't have information for that more specific AS. As such, this essentially could cause a DoS on that traffic until the BGP route allows for the new path for the more specific AS. The importance of mentioning this int he security considerations section is to more explicitly call this out as a potential DoS attack method. The time for BGP to repropagate might be short(ish), but that could be a critical amount of time during an event and maybe the more specific AS is a web server farm or some other critical resource. |
2015-08-20
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I think Robert Sparks followup Gen-ART review of version 07 deserves consideration: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rG31yTd2kDc8PaTCaoVyZ5ZJDbg |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Ben Campbell | Ballot comment text updated for Ben Campbell |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - intro 1st sentence confuses me at least. The 2nd paragraph does explain it nicely though when I get to page 3. Maybe … [Ballot comment] - intro 1st sentence confuses me at least. The 2nd paragraph does explain it nicely though when I get to page 3. Maybe try re-word that opener? Or just delete para 1? - Figure 4 is mentioned in 2.2.1, and includes AS65404, but that ASN is not mentioned in the text in that section which is confusing, or is there a typo? I also didn't quite follow the description in 2.2.1 either which may be related or independent;-) - I'm guessing, but didn't check in detail that -07 includes changes from the secdir review [1] (which raised some nits). If so, thanks! [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05853.html |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-08-18
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] I have a non-blocking comment related to the characterization of the unexpected traffic flows (and a nit). Section 6. (Security Considerations) Throughout the … [Ballot comment] I have a non-blocking comment related to the characterization of the unexpected traffic flows (and a nit). Section 6. (Security Considerations) Throughout the document the unexpected traffic flows were characterized as potential policy violations, not as routing security issues as is done here. I know that the text has gone around the point of malicious intent (or not) before, but I think that if you’re going to mention that it could be a "potential routing security issue”, then you should say something more about it (even if it is the result of non-malicious intent) — or just leave it at policy violations. Nit: The example in Section 2.2.1. (Unexpected traffic flows caused by remotely triggered filtering of more specific prefixes) didn’t look good to me at first..then I re-read the text until I discovered that the other ASes (including 64505) are peering with both 64502 and 64503. Because of how Figure 4 is drawn, it looks like 64505 is only connected to 64502. Maybe centering that AS will avoid confusion. |
2015-08-18
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-08-18
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-08-18
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I have no issues with the publication of this document. The following are simply voiced for your consideration... 1. I think the comment … [Ballot comment] I have no issues with the publication of this document. The following are simply voiced for your consideration... 1. I think the comment in 3.2 about how difficult it is to get routing policies from external entities is undersold. Most organizations won't share that information since it might reveal business arrangements they consider proprietary. I would suggest being explicit in the cause for the difficulty in obtaining such information. 2. Section 4.2.1 seems to be hinting at a UI deficiency in routing platforms in that a route filter installed in the control plane should automatically result in an ACL installed in the forwarding plane. That sounds like an intriguing capability. 3. All of the approaches described in section 4 seem littered with caveats on their effectiveness. Is there any definitive data on the effectiveness of these techniques? |
2015-08-18
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-08-17
|
07 | Robert Sparks | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
2015-08-15
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-08-13
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-08-13
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-07-30
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-07-29
|
07 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
2015-07-27
|
07 | Camilo Cardona | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-07-27
|
07 | Camilo Cardona | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07.txt |
2015-07-18
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-07-18
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-08-20 |
2015-07-18
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-07-18
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot has been issued |
2015-07-18
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-07-18
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-07-18
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-07-08
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2015-07-02
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-06-30
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. |
2015-06-25
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-06-25
|
06 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-06-25
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2015-06-25
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2015-06-23
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2015-06-23
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2015-06-18
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-06-18
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-06-18
|
06 | Maddy Conner | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-06-18
|
06 | Maddy Conner | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Impact of BGP filtering on … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Impact of BGP filtering on Inter-Domain Routing Policies) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG (grow) to consider the following document: - 'Impact of BGP filtering on Inter-Domain Routing Policies' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-07-02. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes how unexpected traffic flows can emerge across an autonomous system, as the result of other autonomous systems filtering, or restricting the propagation of more specific prefixes. We provide a review of the techniques to detect the occurrence of this issue and defend against it. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-06-18
|
06 | Maddy Conner | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-06-18
|
06 | Maddy Conner | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-06-17
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call was requested |
2015-06-17
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-06-17
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-06-17
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-06-17
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-06-09
|
06 | Camilo Cardona | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-06.txt |
2015-04-19
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-04-08
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. The RFC provides information about routing policy bahavior. Header indicates Informational. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document describes how unexpected traffic flows can emerge across an autonomous system, as the result of other autonomous systems filtering, or restricting the propagation of more specific prefixes. We provide a review of the techniques to detect the occurrence of this issue and defend against it. Working Group Summary: The document went through a number of revisions to clairfy the message delivered. The technical content has been stable through the life. Document Quality: The document has gone through a number of detailed reviews and revisions based on the feedback from the working group members. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd, Peter Schoenmaker, Responsible AD Joel Jaeggli (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the document, and feel it is ready for publication. In addition I have followed the revisions and reviews from others. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. A number of thorough review have been done. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No specific concerns. Careful consideration has been made to the vocabulary of the document, in an effert to convey the technical message without applying preconceptions to the terms. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? In the end consensus was complete. Most issues revolved around vocabulary which the authors worked out. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No Nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? N/A (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. N/A (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). No IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. None. |
2015-04-08
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-04-08
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2015-04-08
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Changed document writeup |
2015-02-23
|
05 | Camilo Cardona | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-05.txt |
2015-02-11
|
04 | Camilo Cardona | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-04.txt |
2014-10-01
|
03 | Peter Schoenmaker | Document shepherd changed to Peter Schoenmaker |
2014-10-01
|
03 | Peter Schoenmaker | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2014-08-04
|
03 | Camilo Cardona | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-03.txt |
2014-02-13
|
02 | Camilo Cardona | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-02.txt |
2013-10-18
|
01 | Camilo Cardona | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-01.txt |
2013-08-24
|
00 | Camilo Cardona | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-00.txt |