Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08

In message <p06240504c2c52a6ee09d@[128.89.89.71]>
Stephen Kent writes:
>  
> A common theme in your comments is "practial [sic] and deployable." 
> There's nothing wrong with those goals, although I would add "secure" 
> as well :-). The problem, of course, is getting agreement on what 
> constitutes practical, deployable, and secure.
>  
> Steve

Practical and deployable should be goals if we want to see something
deployed.

Secure where there is no portion of the path containing
non-participant AS should be a goal.

Providing indication of better confidence with certain semi-trusted
non-participant AS in the path should be a goal.

Regarding Russ' comments: OOB is not excluded but any OOB solution
must meet requirements regarding AS Path, not just origin AS.

Do we have agreement?

Curtis

ps - If you are talking about general DDoS attacks, providers knew
this was possible.  They would rather see Bill Gates hung for
providing the insecure OS that made DDoS bots so easy to implement.
The point was that not much can be done from the provider's standpoint
for DDoS to end sites.  Now if the Feds confiscated PCs involved in
attacks, spam, etc, sent the PCs back to the supplier to apply
patches, returned the PCs, and sent the bill for the investigation to
the OS vendor, we'd have the problems all solved.  :-) Users of free
or homegrown OS would have to apply patches themselved before bringing
computers online again.  [No chance of this happenning - just a dream.]

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
RPSEC@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec