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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 10:14:32 -0400 (EDT)

Joel, you said:

>There is a very big difference between claiming to be part of a certain AS 
>and claiming to be on the path to a certain AS.  In link state systems that 
>distinction is intrinsic to the system.  Even with vector based systems, 
>there are a range of counter-measures that are different in dealing with 
>the two issues.  I suggest that they be treated separately.

and

>However, I was more focussing on the issue you got to in the later portion 
>of your note.  We can talk about whether someone has the right to advertise 
>certain internal properties (has internal reachability to certain address 
>blocks for example.)  We can talk about whether some can speak on behalf of 
>a given entity (speak for an AS, legitimately introduce an advertisement in 
>either vector or map systems claiming to have been originated by a specific 
>entity, ...)  However, in path systems the amount we can practically 
>accomplish with regard to manipulations of the path portion of the 
>advertisement is moderately limitted, and tends to end up with things that 
>are in the earlier set.

So you are suggesting a different way of dividing the problem: not by
IGP/EGP and not by link/vector, but by the class of properties that
we can easily protect?

I'm not sure I see a neat way of characterizing the easy from the
difficult properties.  Are the easy problems the ones having to do
with information the ISP is speaking for itself only (i.e., none of
this "I heard from Joe" but the "I say for myself").  If so, what
would you say about protocol mechanisms that Russ was talking about
that aggregate information at some point - is that the "speaking for
oneself" information that we would devise some way of protecting or
not?  Is that a "manipulation of the path portion of the advertisement"
or not?

--Sandy

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

---

From: Subhendu Ghosh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 12:22:31 -0400 (EDT)

Just to throw another twist in the mix...

I am working on methods to allow/announce reachability
between a manet environment and a standard IGP.
The potential for route flapping here is quite large.

Security here is something I would like to achieve but am a bit ways off 
as yet.  Would this be considered as part of the scope of this WG?

-subhendu

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 21:15:45 -0400 (EDT)

I think so... If it's routing related, and requirements/thinking
phase, you should feel free to discuss it here. Unless Alex or
Bill hit me over the head.

:-)

Russ

> as yet.  Would this be considered as part of the scope of this WG?

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