Re: "Is BGP safe yet?" test

["Cummings, Chris" <ccummings () coeur com>]

Why do you think that RPKI adoption will be slowed due to this action by CloudFlare?

—
Chris Cummings

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces () nanog org> on behalf of Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Monday, April 20, 2020 at 10:35
To: Andrey Kostin <ankost () podolsk ru>
Cc: Nanog <nanog () 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 () podolsk ru<mailto:ankost () 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