Re: [CCAMP] draft-mahesh-karp-lmp-analysis

Fatai Zhang <> Mon, 17 March 2014 08:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6D41A0051; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 01:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.148
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMSpRu8TZwLi; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 01:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC9D1A0070; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 01:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCD34024; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:36:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:36:15 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:36:14 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:36:09 +0800
From: Fatai Zhang <>
To: "t.petch" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-mahesh-karp-lmp-analysis
Thread-Index: AQHPQEziMG4deo3Zq02OTrJxcUbyS5rk9E4A
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:36:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <09d601cf3a34$373a1ee0$> <011701cf404c$167fcc40$>
In-Reply-To: <011701cf404c$167fcc40$>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-mahesh-karp-lmp-analysis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:36:27 -0000

Hi all,

some quick comments from me:

Firstly, as we know that all LMP messages are run over UDP with an LMP port number (except, in some cases, the Test messages, which may be limited by the transport mechanism for in-band messaging), so what are the special security requirements needed for LMP compared to the general UDP security? Note that I don't see the answer from Section 3.

Secondly, is there any security requirement for in-band messaging? 

Thirdly, for "Gap Analysis" in Section 4, it seems that Message_ID issue is the only "gap", is there any other "gap"?

Best Regards


-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of t.petch
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:37 PM
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-mahesh-karp-lmp-analysis

At IETF89, I recall CCAMP was asked if it would review the KARP analysis
of LMP and four assented, of which I was one.  I would like any
discussion to take place on an list for its archiving and
reliable distribution.  I would be interested to hear the views of the
other three.

My first two thoughts are

- Section 1 seems misdirected.  KARP categorises routing protocols and
one such is TCP point-to-point which encompasses BGP, LDP, PCEP and MSDP
but notes in RFC6518, RFC6862 that LDP has an unsecured UDP part which
then seems to be neglected.  LMP does not seem to fit any category being
point-to-point over UDP with mandatory security and indeed seems to be
ignored by KARP.  So I think that this section needs reworking.
- Section 2.5 is a paraphrase of parts of s.7 of RFC4204 which seems to
me less clear and less precise - I think that the original text should
be used.

Tom Petch

CCAMP mailing list