Re: ipsec in tunnel mode and dynamic routing

Derek Atkins <warlord@mit.edu> Mon, 19 November 2001 20:38 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAJKcZ820977; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:38:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA10274 Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:50:08 -0500 (EST)
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
Cc: Lars Eggert <larse@ISI.EDU>, Ricky Charlet <rcharlet@redcreek.com>, Giaretta Gerardo <Gerardo.Giaretta@TILAB.COM>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, xbone@ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: ipsec in tunnel mode and dynamic routing
References: <20011119194941.403247C00@berkshire.research.att.com>
From: Derek Atkins <warlord@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:59:27 -0500
In-Reply-To: "Steven M. Bellovin"'s message of "Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:49:41 -0500"
Message-ID: <sjm1yiujzvk.fsf@benjamin.ihtfp.org>
Lines: 24
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com> writes:

> It's not source address verification I'm concerned about, it's 
> connection hijacking and DOSing.

If you're going to route on top of IPsec (i.e. use IPsec tunnels as
links to be routed across) then you don't get any additional
protection anyways, because you truly are not limiting the packets
traversing your network.  Aren't dynamic routing and access-control
checks mutually exclusive in the "core"?  How would a core router know
whether there is a real path for a packet through a peer?  This seems
to boil down to secure routing paths, which would seem out of scope
for IPsec, no?

> 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
> 		Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord@MIT.EDU                        PGP key available