IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08

sandy@tislabs.com (Sandy Murphy) Fri, 13 July 2007 20:54 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 1I9S9T-0008FH-P4; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:54:11 -0400
Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I9S9S-0008Ey-EC for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:54:10 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9S9S-0008Eq-3M for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:54:10 -0400
Received: from ns1.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.100] helo=nutshell.tislabs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9S9O-0007Nj-Qm for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:54:10 -0400
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id l6DKpVAb022615; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:51:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pecan.tislabs.com(10.66.1.30) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAn4aikS; Fri, 13 Jul 07 16:51:26 -0400
Received: by pecan.tislabs.com (Postfix, from userid 2005) id 3D6A63F420; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:49:32 -0400 (EDT)
To: riw@cisco.com, sandy@tislabs.com
Subject: Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08
In-Reply-To: <4697E505.2090809@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <20070713204932.3D6A63F420@pecan.tislabs.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:49:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: sandy@tislabs.com (Sandy Murphy)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc: rcallon@juniper.net, rpsec@ietf.org, dward@cisco.com, psavola@funet.fi
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

>I think so.... I wonder how this overlaps with the p-2-p bgp draft also
>being considered?

I don't quite know what you mean by a p-2-p bgp draft.  The behringer
draft concerns the security requirements of protecting the bgp peer to
bgp peer connection (e.g., TCP MD5).  Perhaps that is what you are
talking about?

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-01.txt

Abstract

   The document "BGP security requirements"
   (draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-07) specifies general security
   requirements for BGP.  However, specific security requirements for
   single BGP sessions, i.e., the connection between two BGP peers, are
   only touched on briefly in the section "transport layer protection".
   This document expands on this particular aspect of BGP security,
   defining the security requirements between two BGP peers.

--Sandy


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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email