"Is BGP safe yet?" test

Mon Apr 20 16:24:20 UTC 2020

Technical people need to make the business case to management for RKPI by
laying out what it would cost to implement (equipment, resources, ongoing
opex), and what the savings are to the company from protecting themselves
against hijacks. By taking this step, I believe RPKI will become viewed by
non-technical decision makers as a 'Cloudflare initiative' instead of a
'good of the internet' initiative, especially by some companies who compete
with Cloudflare in the CDN space.

I believe that will change the calculus and make it a more difficult sell
for technical people to get resources approved to make it happen.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:38 AM Cummings, Chris <ccummings at coeur.com>
wrote:

> Why do you think that RPKI adoption will be slowed due to this action by
> CloudFlare?
>
>
>
> —
>
> Chris Cummings
>
>
>
> *From: *NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> on behalf of Tom Beecher
> <beecher at beecher.cc>
> *Date: *Monday, April 20, 2020 at 10:35
> *To: *Andrey Kostin <ankost at podolsk.ru>
> *Cc: *Nanog <nanog at nanog.org>
> *Subject: *Re: "Is BGP safe yet?" test
>
>
>
> ( Speaking 100% for myself. )
>
>
>
> I think it was tremendously irresponsible, especially in the context of
> current events, to take a complex technical issue like this and frame it to
> the general public as a 'safety' issue.
>
>
>
> It's created articles like this :
> https://www.wired.com/story/cloudflare-bgp-routing-safe-yet/ , which are
> terrible because they imply that RPKI is just some simple thing that anyone
> not doing is just lazy or stupid. Very few people will read to the bottom
> note about vendors implementing RPKI support, or do any other research on
> the issue and challenges that some companies face to do it. It's not their
> job; that's ours.
>
>
>
> I feel like there has been more momentum in getting more people to
> implement PKI in the last 18-24 months. ( Maybe others with different
> visibility have different opinions there. ) There are legitimate technical
> and business reasons why this isn't just a switch that can be turned on,
> and everyone in our industry knows that.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, Mr. Prince is doing a great disservice by taking this
> approach, and in the longer term RPKI adoption will likely be slower than
> it would have been otherwise. I genuinely appreciate much of what
> Cloudflare does for the sake of 'internet good' , but I believe they wildly
> missed the mark here.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:09 AM Andrey Kostin <ankost at podolsk.ru> wrote:
>
> Hi Nanog list,
>
> Would be interesting to hear your opinion on this:
> https://isbgpsafeyet.com/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fisbgpsafeyet.com%2f&c=E,1,yPfCe3uCN5n20SgR-hbGPgyzXYl7fhPtgS0piraWZK5vfdwL2nMPvg2btKnk02oAsf0IJBBQzRwbwXQEGrrr4gJiesDJCWWswG6KRpMuONuXKHTwRf5I&typo=1>
>
> We have cases when residential customers ask support "why is your
> service isn't safe?" pointing to that article. It's difficult to answer
> correctly considering that the asking person usually doesn't know what
> BGP is and what it's used for, save for understanding it's function,
> design and possible misuses.
> IMO, on one hand it promotes and is aimed to push RPKI deployment, on
> the other hand is this a proper way for it? How ethical is to claim
> other market players unsafe, considering that scope of possible impact
> of not implementing it has completely different scale for a small stub
> network and big transit provider?
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrey
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200420/b932a9fc/attachment.html>