Problem Definition and Classification of BGP Route Leaks
draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-06

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this well written document as others noted. I prefer a rewording of a somewhat choppy sentence in section 3.2 as it inaccurately quotes from the reference. The sentence says "[Mauch] observes that these are anomalies and potentially route leaks because very large ISPs such as ATT, Sprint, Verizon, and Globalcrossing do not in general buy transit services from each other." But the reference says "Example: UUNet (701) does not buy from Sprint (1239) to get to Globalcrossing (3549)." As this section in the document is "Example incidents" for Type 2, it infers this was an actual incident. But the reference itself simply says it is monitoring for this association.

Suggest to reword:
[Mauch] observes that its detection algorithm detects for these anomalies and potentially route leaks because very large ISPs do not in general buy transit services from each other.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this well written document as others noted. I prefer a rewording of section 3.2 as it inaccurately quotes from the reference. The document says "[Mauch] observes that these are anomalies and potentially route leaks because very large ISPs such as ATT, Sprint, Verizon, and Globalcrossing do not in general buy transit services from each other." But the reference says "Example: UUNet (701) does not buy from Sprint (1239) to get to Globalcrossing (3549)." As this section in the document is "Example incidents" for Type 2, it infers this was an actual incident. But the reference itself simply says it is monitoring for this association.

Suggest to reword:
[Mauch] observes that its detection algorithm detects for these anomalies and potentially route leaks because very large ISPs do not in general buy transit services from each other.

[Ballot comment]

- Thanks for doing this. The set of references alone seems
particularly valuable.

- section 2, does "propagation" in the definition mean
that purely faked announcement messages (ignoring RPKI for
the moment) that overlap with genuine announcements cannot
be considered route-leaks?  From the receiver POV, those
would not be distinct. It was probably already suggested
but if not, do you think would s/propagation/receipt/ or
similar be a little better?

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: grow-chairs@ietf.org, joelja@gmail.com, christopher.morrow@gmail.com, "Christopher Morrow" , draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Problem Definition and Classification of BGP Route Leaks) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
(grow) to consider the following document:
- 'Problem Definition and Classification of BGP Route Leaks'
  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 2016-03-28. 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


  A systemic vulnerability of the Border Gateway Protocol routing
  system, known as 'route leaks', has received significant attention in
  recent years.  Frequent incidents that result in significant
  disruptions to Internet routing are labeled "route leaks", but to
  date we have lacked a common definition of the term.  In this
  document, we provide a working definition of route leaks, keeping in
  mind the real occurrences that have received significant attention.
  Further, we attempt to enumerate (though not exhaustively) different
  types of route leaks based on observed events on the Internet.  We
  aim to provide a taxonomy that covers several forms of route leaks
  that have been observed and are of concern to Internet user community
  as well as the network operator community.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

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

(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

  A systemic vulnerability of the Border Gateway Protocol routing
  system, known as 'route leaks', has received significant attention in
  recent years.  Frequent incidents that result in significant
  disruptions to Internet routing are labeled "route leaks", but to
  date we have lacked a common definition of the term.  In this
  document, we provide a working definition of route leaks, keeping in
  mind the real occurrences that have received significant attention.
  Further, we attempt to enumerate (though not exhaustively) different
  types of route leaks based on observed events on the Internet.  We
  aim to provide a taxonomy that covers several forms of route leaks
  that have been observed and are of concern to Internet user community
  as well as the network operator community.

Working Group Summary

  This draft got significant review/discussion in the WG, with 5 revisions and agreement in the group on the focus and direction/content of the draft.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

There are no implementations of a protocol for this, this document is a taxonomy of route leak types/causes/etc.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

shepherd: Chris Morrow
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 read most of the revisions of this document, provided comments, corrections, direction and hopefully helped it get to a reasonable state.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

no concerns.

(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.

I don't believe any parts are particularly in need of expert review.

(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 concerns.

(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 IPR issues stated.

(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? 

consensus seems solid.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

none

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(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?

no.

(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.

no

(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).

there aren't any considerations for IANA in this draft.

(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.

N/A

(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 required.