IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG LC: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast

Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> Tue, 09 December 2008 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: l3vpn-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-l3vpn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E476C3A6AA5; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:02:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036D83A6B05 for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:02:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.349, 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 nWGpUgFFD7i1 for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:02:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F993A6AA5 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:02:35 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,741,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="30506904"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2008 17:02:30 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9H2UrS008834; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:02:30 -0500
Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB9H2Tws023437; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:02:30 GMT
Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mB9H2Tdt031547; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:02:29 -0500
To: Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com>
Subject: Re: WG LC: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:14:43 +0100. <1228828483.5878.95.camel@l-at11168.FTRD>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:02:29 -0500
Message-ID: <31546.1228842149@erosen-linux>
From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1095; t=1228842150; x=1229706150; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=erosen@cisco.com; z=From:=20Eric=20Rosen=20<erosen@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20WG=20LC=3A=20draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-m cast=20 |Sender:=20 |To:=20Thomas=20Morin=20<thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com>; bh=se3xy6M1ELKxSXdsNYF9oJzhUl53IG9B25sLpNDMS/Y=; b=V5xj3S2xr7us8VtYeb6e5xuTZ1ssIvQ8ggk83eJUhxCTzkATKx1l9sxKKM 7Fe1/3EE++xE/W2lKuTajaRI3D02vNORpyrioB7bf50lj2sq2q1ohE8Jxcav m9tjMCPAby;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=erosen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Cc: erosen@cisco.com, L3VPN <l3vpn@ietf.org>, Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@juniper.net>
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/l3vpn>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Eric> I'm not sure that any special mention of the S-PMSI Join message needs
Eric> to be made in the Security Considerations at all.

Thomas> Hum, surprising to hear this: why was it added then ?...

Because I made  a mistake.  Someone suggested it, and at  the time I thought
it was okay, but on later consideration I think I erred on adding it.

Eric> I don't think that there is a place in current specs where it is
Eric> explicit that S-PMSI Join messages processing is only for UDP packets
Eric> carried on an MI-PMSI

I have  to disagree;  I think this  is quite  clear from sections  7.4.2 and
7.4.2.1.

Eric> accepting UDP  S-PMSI Join  packets from the  CE side can  happen very
Eric> easily given the protocol design 

On the  contrary, there are no  semantics specified for  S-PMSI Join packets
received from a CE.

Thus I think the only issues  are those which are discussed in the security
considerations of RFC  4797, "Use of Provider Edge  to Provider Edge (PE-PE)
Generic Routing  Encapsulation (GRE)  or IP in  BGP/MPLS IP  Virtual Private
Networks".

v2.40.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status