IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [karp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-00

"Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 29 March 2011 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: karp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7970E3A67DB for <karp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.814
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.814 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0zBssi6qAQHb for <karp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B4F3A63CA for <karp@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-33.lucent.com [135.250.11.33]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p2TCjX6M006853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:45:36 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub01.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.32]) by inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p2TCjW13032200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:15:33 +0530
Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.50]) by INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.32]) with mapi; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:15:32 +0530
From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com>, "karp@ietf.org" <karp@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:15:30 +0530
Thread-Topic: [karp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-00
Thread-Index: AcvXwoWW8Rif6eKzROmQ678erKiuOQWQ9mrA
Message-ID: <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350CFCF668BE@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <4D6C6AD4.2070408@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D6C6AD4.2070408@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
Cc: Keyur Patel <keyupate@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [karp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-00
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:44:01 -0000

Hi Mahesh,
 
I quickly looked at the document and couldn't find the gap analysis that this document promises to provide in the Introduction.
 
I was expecting some text saying that "while we have TCP-AO for BGP, there still are the following issues that exist with BGP .. blah blah" - I couldn't find any such text. In fact, I am not even sure I understand the gaps that you want the WG to look at.
 
Further when doing gap analysis in sec 4 you state the following in your document:
 
"The session layer that runs on TCP needs to protect itself by running TCP LISTEN only on interfaces on which its peers have been discovered or that are configured to expect sessions on."

I am a little confused with this - How would BGP know which interface to expect a TCP packet from for its IBGP peer that's peering using the loopback IP address?

Further you say that BGP, LDP, etc are vulnerable to spoofing and MITM attacks. Can you explain how this can happen when these use TCP-AO?

The draft also talks about privacy issues in some sections which I believe can completely be removed.

Cheers, Manav

________________________________

	From: karp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:karp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani
	Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9.11 AM
	To: karp@ietf.org
	Cc: Keyur Patel
	Subject: [karp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-00
	
	
	The authors have submitted a draft that does a analysis of the current state of the three routing protocols per the karp analysis guide. Please review the draft and provide comments on it.
	
	Thanks.
	
	--mj
	
	-------- Original Message --------
	
	


	A new version of I-D, draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Mahesh Jethanandani and posted to the IETF repository.
	
	Filename:        draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis
	Revision:        00
	Title:           Analysis of BGP, LDP and MSDP Security According to KARP Design Guide
	Creation_date:   2011-02-25
	WG ID:           Independent Submission
	Number_of_pages: 13
	
	Abstract:
	This document analyzes BGP, LDP and MSDP according to guidelines set
	forth in section 4.2 of [draft-ietf-karp-design-guide].
	                                                                                 
	
	
	The IETF Secretariat.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email