Re: [RPSEC] Feedback on draft-behringer-bgp-session-req-01

At 7:21 AM -0700 6/22/07, Joe Touch wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
>	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
>	boundary="------------enigB1D3AB5BCF55D129E9BDB950"
>
>Hi, Barry,
>
>Barry Greene (bgreene) wrote:
>>  I guess we have differing views on the definition of "security." If I
>>  can classify based on a policy which provides me more resistance from
>>  attacks, then that is a "security tool." Hence, GTSM is a security tool.
>
>GTSM could be classified as a security tool, but it is not IP layer
>security. It is a mechanism an endpoint can use to increase its
>resistance to attack, as you note, but it doesn't particularly protect
>any single protocol layer or header.
>
>Joe

GTSM also has a very limited (although important) scope, since it is 
generally applicable only in contexts where one can predict the 
appropriate TTL value for legitimate traffic (and where active 
attacks on the path the traffic is traversing are not assumed to be 
viable).

Steve

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