IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 13 July 2007 14:43 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 1I9MML-00032G-Au; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:43:05 -0400
Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I9MMJ-0002kd-Bb for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:43:03 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9MMI-0002hd-Vt for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0400
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9MME-0001Vb-IV for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.42] (pool-71-105-86-112.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.105.86.112]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6DEg6AI007744; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <46978F3A.5040306@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:42:02 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Barry Greene (bgreene)" <bgreene@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08
References: <200707130405.l6D45ZQa081057@harbor.brookfield.occnc.com> <4697224A.5050901@isi.edu> <C35ADD020AEBD04383C1F7F644227FDF04028C86@xmb-sjc-227.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C35ADD020AEBD04383C1F7F644227FDF04028C86@xmb-sjc-227.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, Tony Tauber <ttauber@1-4-5.net>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0538540183=="
Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org

I disagree, and have offered to contribute text already.

Joe

Barry Greene (bgreene) wrote:
>  
> In the last draft it was pretty clear.  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@ISI.EDU] 
>> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:57 PM
>> To: curtis@occnc.com
>> Cc: rpsec@ietf.org; Tony Tauber
>> Subject: Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08
> 
> 
> 
>> Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>> ...
>>> GTSM is very effective in protecting against certain high volume 
>>> attacks that would cripple infrastructure protected by 
>> cryptographic 
>>> means alone.  From a practical standpoint GTSM used alone may be 
>>> inadequate as a solution (though some ISPs might contest even
>>> that)  but it is a required part of any solution in an ISP
>>> environment.  
>>>
>>> Curtis
>> I agree that DOS attacks benefit from protections that help 
>> reduce the impact of attack traffic; GTSM falls into that 
>> category - it's clearly a useful part of a DOS solution, but 
>> DOS protection isn't cryptographic protection. The bulk of 
>> the BGP security requirements document focuses on 
>> cryptographic issues - not DOS protection. It's worth noting 
>> the difference, but not lumping the solutions together.
> 
>> Joe
> 
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------
>> Joe Touch
>> Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment
> 
> 

-- 
----------------------------------------
Joe Touch
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment


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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email