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

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>
>
>