[153393] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ROVER routing security - its not enumeration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Tue Jun 5 15:44:58 2012
In-Reply-To: <m2ipf5mtrv.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:44:21 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>> There are number of operational models that provide the needed
>>> routing protection without enumeration.
>> I can see a use-case for something like:
>> =A0 "Build me a prefix list from the RIR data"
>
> this requires a full data fetch, not doable in dns.
does it? shane implied (and it doesn't seem UNREASONABLE, modulo some
'doing lots of spare queries') to query for each filter entry at
filter creation time, no?
get-as-GOOGLE =3D 216.239.32.0/19
lookup-in-dns =3D <rover-query-for-/19> + <rover-query-for-/20> +
<rover-query-for-/21>.....
that could be optimized I bet, but it SEEMS doable, cumbersome, but
doable. the 'fail open' answer also seems a bit rough in this case
(but no worse than 'download irr, upload to router, win!' which is
today's model).
-chris
