Subject: RE: [RPSEC] Quesitons....

From: "Manral, Vishwas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 08:40:02 -0400

Hi Russ/group,

>On another topic, should we have two seperate sets of drafts for
>requirements docs, one for interior protocols, and one for
>exterior protocols? Should we form technical subgroups to work on
>these?

I feel, the security threats would be different in case of interior
protocols and exterior protocols, and that is why maybe two different
requirements document would be necessary.

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.
However if the requirements came to be similar we could always merge the
requirements in the end.

Thanks,
Vishwas

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ White [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:32 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [RPSEC] Quesitons....

So, I messed up the address when I sent this, and it still got
delivered, somehow, but people seem to be having problems
responding, so I'm sending it again to the right address this
time.

:-)

Russ

-----

Okay, this list is too quiet. So BOO!

I think we need to get some discussion rolling here, and decide
how we are going to get some drafts up and going. So, to that
end, some questions:

-- There appear to be several seperate problems in securing
routing systems:

-- Knowing for certain the the device/as advertising a given
address actually should be advertising that address. For
instance, you are receiving an advertisement for 10/8 from AS
65000. Should as 6500 really be advertising this destination as
reachable?

-- Knowing for certain that a device/as advertising a given
address is who it claims to be. For instance, some device
claiming to be part of as 65000 is advertising 10/8. Is it really
part of that as?

The second aspect is represented in a couple of ways--a "man in
the middls" can grab your traffic (or misdirect it) by claiming
as 65000 is behind them, or by stating that they are as
65000. Either one seems to work equally as well.

Are these two seperate problems which need to be solved in two
seperate ways? Are they applicable to all protocols? How much of
a chunk of these two problems does securing the interrouter
communications within a given protocol solve any of these
problems?

Should we address these as seperate problems in seperate
documents, or should an entire system stand or fall as one unit?

On another topic, should we have two seperate sets of drafts for
requirements docs, one for interior protocols, and one for
exterior protocols? Should we form technical subgroups to work on
these?

:-)

Russ

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