IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] Reminder: Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements

Barry Raveendran Greene <bgreene@senki.org> Tue, 17 April 2018 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <bgreene@senki.org>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B0F212025C for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ViCYhjLRt3cR for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp121.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp121.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.121]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E17641241F5 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp24.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp24.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 115B224C8F; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:21:29 -0400 (EDT)
X-Auth-ID: bgreene@senki.org
Received: by smtp24.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: bgreene-AT-senki.org) with ESMTPSA id 1F44C24D84; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:21:26 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: bgreene@senki.org
Received: from [10.101.0.130] (58-84-236-175.nzwireless.co.nz [58.84.236.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.7.12); Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:21:29 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-85691C37-172E-4600-B439-97067E82C357"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Barry Raveendran Greene <bgreene@senki.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (15E216)
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR05MB4240AA845A5245E08E49CACAAEB70@SN6PR05MB4240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 07:21:22 +1200
Cc: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, "draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements@ietf.org" <draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <A976E7E7-327B-4B30-B975-D92F6B2309B9@senki.org>
References: <62EC3E74-6837-4E22-B9C8-FD738316DED6@cisco.com> <SN6PR05MB4240AA845A5245E08E49CACAAEB70@SN6PR05MB4240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/zinaVLYuB9BQybpjC_Txw696Nvo>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Reminder: Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:21:36 -0000


> On Apr 18, 2018, at 01:48, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Any comments, positive, negative or indifferent would be appreciated. It is difficult to judge consensus in the face of silence.

Since you asked. Feasible path was build around the capabilities of Juniper’s FIB structure. Strict Mode, Loose Mode, and VRF Mode all used a more general approach. My question for working group adoption would be if the approach is applicable to vendors outside of Juniper. Is this possible on Cisco, Huawei, Nokia, Arista, and others? If yes, then it is a good for working group adoption.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email