IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08

"Barry Greene \(bgreene\)" <bgreene@cisco.com> Wed, 11 July 2007 14:09 UTC

Return-path: <rpsec-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8csG-0007kM-N5; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:09:00 -0400
Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I8csF-0007hg-Rh for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:08:59 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8csF-0007et-4Y for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:08:59 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8csB-0001Bt-QI for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:08:59 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2007 07:08:55 -0700
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAJaBlEarR7PE/2dsb2JhbAA
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,527,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="180196726:sNHT55959750"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l6BE8tpR008707; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:08:55 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l6BE8smo017936; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:08:55 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-227.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.43]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:08:54 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:06:44 -0700
Message-ID: <C35ADD020AEBD04383C1F7F644227FDF040282F0@xmb-sjc-227.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4694DE33.2080706@isi.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08
Thread-Index: AcfDwaKxDkzO/DKuR7itO1GwO2cQIAAAi37Q
References: <20070709142132.GF7635@1-4-5.net> <4694DE33.2080706@isi.edu>
From: "Barry Greene \(bgreene\)" <bgreene@cisco.com>
To: "Joe Touch" <touch@ISI.EDU>, "Tony Tauber" <ttauber@1-4-5.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2007 14:08:54.0911 (UTC) FILETIME=[0428E0F0:01C7C3C5]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=774; t=1184162935; x=1185026935; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=bgreene@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Barry=20Greene=20\(bgreene\)=22=20<bgreene@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[RPSEC]=20BGP=20Security=20Requirements=20v08 |Sender:=20; bh=AQJLt0TnsmkD1UfPHTeWawr+1thuMQC1hwVJ7jcSW08=; b=nFaW13fS+MyGLL1LfGcdn+ZKA0xEeDhQzasSKA2XpY/OZOv9ktTFEgmPCyapPWTdX6479Vvs 3PjmicA1mVBHWUVSNevbvjEtUQqz7RtWJ996IFTSrUr5arNJjjf1ZV9I;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=bgreene@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Cc: rpsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements <rpsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>, <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rpsec>
List-Post: <mailto:rpsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>, <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

 

> I didn't see any changes related to the feedback I posted on 
> the transport protocol issues and GTSM. There are a number of 
> current I-Ds in this space that are not discussed, and any 
> description that includes the need for keying (SHOULD) might 
> reconsider whether GTSM qualifies as relevant at all in this space.

I see a tool - GTSM - that allows me to policy check the packet in
the forwarding ASIC - before I punt to the control plane of the
device - as totally relevant. It is a working tool which add
resistance to DOS. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBRpTj9L/UEA/xivvmEQIKKACfasX/U135L6QC07Bh0CaecLXYiwgAoMBo
RjJoWxRGtiz30k7YJURb5Duk
=LtiU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email