[RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Hi Luigi,

Yes, I believe it is ready.

Best regards,
Ines

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:32 PM Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ines,
>
> Do you consider that the document is now ready for publication from the
> RTGDir  perspective?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ciao
>
> L.
>
> On 4 Jul 2024, at 07:35, Ines Robles <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Ok, Thank you Dino for the clarification,
>
> BR,
> Ines
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 1:39 AM Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Ines, thanks for your comments. Here is one response to your commentary.
>>
>> > > 9- In the security considerations, what about add description on
>> attacks
>> > > related to geo-coordinates such as location spoofing?
>> >
>> > We had added that from previous reviews. Tell us exactly what you are
>> looking for.
>> >
>> > Ok, thanks. I was wondering about potential consequences of location
>> spoofing within the LISP environment, such as misleading network path
>> selection. What do you think?
>>
>> I think we have covered this and there is no way to validate a "good
>> geo-coordinate". If you authenticate the source who registered the mapping,
>> you are trusting them. There is no way to do a back-door check to see if
>> the location is correct or precise.
>>
>> We don't want the draft to spec out to validate something this:
>>
>> EID: London, UK
>> RLOC: geo lat: 37, geo long: -121
>>
>> Meaning, you don't want to say, "hey those coordinates are in San Jose,
>> CA but you used a name called London, this is suspect, we probably
>> shouldn't register this".
>>
>> This sort of validation should be done in the implementation at the
>> source (and not the LISP implementation) but the admins who decide London
>> needs to be San Jose. ;-)
>>
>> Dino
>>
>>
>>
>>
>