Notepad for IETF 119

[BasilGuo]

idr

1. keyur patel
   1. The draft is a little light. You probally want to be fit up with the rule sets. inserting a new path attr FC-BGP.
      1. Insertion of AS number, If you don't have an AS prior to you, you insert as 0. rogue AS in middle, you know insert something like this, and prove that it doesn't have anything in the front and hijack everything. you got to beef the rule sets nicely.
      2. the key refreshment. bgpsec: refered bgpsec keys.
   2. implement overlay. For overlay BGP path, how does a router know the path is hijacked?
2. susan hares: better secure than bgpsec, prove that in draft.
3. tobias fiebig:
   1. bgp best selection
   2. deployment, legacy part.
4. jeffery haas:
   1. fib size，convergence time
   2. bgp best path selection, its hard and difficult to modify best path selection
   3. loop detection. different priorities may cause loop
5. nan geng:
   1. how did you implement it? use which open source?
   2. page 11, take the best path selection as rov.
6. maria matejka:
   1. path selection as jeffery.
   2. route server transparency.
   3. PoP(Point of Presence) problem. [it may be a corner case]
   4. multiple paths and asymmetric routing in AS, has three PoPs, might have different routes and paths, how does that interact with FC?
7. tom strickx
   1. relay on rpki. If RPKI session fails, can the BGP session be maintained?
   2. if I cannot fetch rpki cert, my session should keep on.
   3. added to the draft.

sidrops

1. Rüdiger Volk: you do not need new rule for path selection.
2. zhang jun said: will you compare the performance of FC-BGP with ASPA?
   1. zhuotao liu: Good question! FC-BGP messages are real-time propagated via BGP routing protocol. So it does not add objects to RPKI. So it is hard to compare their performance Apple-to-apple. In terms of security, the two approaches have different goals but they can complement to each other. I am happy to discuss this more offline.
3. Maria Matějka: i'm still completely clueless what to do with transparent route server setups which are completely incompatible with fc-bgp
   1. Jeffrey Haas: A procedure similar to RSes and bgpsec likely should be used.

[BasilGuo]

IANA Considerations

Before the IETF meeting, we check working group agendas for documents with IANA-related issues. We have notes about the current version of this document:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sidrops-wang-fcbgp-protocol-00

If this document will create the allocation, please provide the name of the registry and enough information to fill out the fields in the registry. (If there is a “value” field, the value should be listed as “TBD,” although a suggested value can also be listed in parentheses and described as “suggested.”) You can find a list of registries at https://www.iana.org/protocols.

If you have any questions, just let us know. If you'd like to talk in person, you can find us next to the RFC Editor's table from Monday through Thursday. You can also request another review at any time by contacting us at iana@iana.org.

For more information about IANA Considerations section requirements, please see

https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration