Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Quesitons....

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 10:11:20 -0400 (EDT)

There are hints that some responders are equating the IGP/EGP
characterization of routing protocols with the link/vector characterization.
  >So, you think we should treat the link state igp's different than
  >the path vector bgp....

  >I feel, the way to exploit the security of a protocol, is to twist the
  >existing mechanisms already existing in the protocols i.e. flooding/Sequence
  >number attacks in case of existing Link state protocols. As the mechanisms
  >used for EGP and IGP's are different we could do with two such documents.

I see no reason to suppose that IGP and EGP protocols have
instrinsically different security requirements.  (Furthermore, not all
IGP's are link state (see RIP), not all EGP's are vector (see IDPR,
RFC1479).)  Now, the damage that might be done by subverting the IGP
routing information vs subverting EGP routing information certainly
has different Internet wide topological *scope*, no question.

But the difference to me is the protocol behavior, not its field of use.

--Sandy

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 21:07:16 -0400 (EDT)

> But the difference to me is the protocol behavior, not its

I tend to agree with this--but I do think that distance vector
and link state protocols are going to wind up with different
requirements, and different ways of approaching/thinking about
the problems.... I'm not convinced, of course, but I think that
any unified requirements doc is actually going to end up being
two requirements docs in one, and they will be easier to discuss
seperately.

:-)

Russ

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone