Re: [savnet] Some words about the BoF

Thanks Aijun. Indeed, DSAV wants to find a general solution to the source address spoofing problem, since uRPF is only effective in certain scenarios. It is inevitable to introduce additional cost. But note that: 

1) all the costs are in the control plane plus a SAV table in routers. DSAV does not modify the packet or reduce the packet forwarding speed. So the data-plane traffic are not affected at all.

2) Even for the control-plane cost, we are trying to minimize the number of protocol messages. The computation operation is simple, so there is not much computation cost.

3) We are designing incremental deployment ways, and operators can get benefit from incremental deployment. So they have incentive.

An obvious advantage of DSAV is that it well matches the MANRS Initiative, i.e., blocking spoofing traffic as close to the source as possible. If the access networks cannot block, then we hope the spoofing traffic can be blocked by intermediate routers, instead of processing them at the final destination. If we only rely on the final destination to resist DDoS attack, actually DDoS attack is successful.

Best,

Dan

发件人: savnet-bounces@ietf.org <savnet-bounces@ietf.org> 代表 Aijun Wang
发送时间: 2022年3月24日 20:26
收件人: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
抄送: savnet@ietf.org
主题: Re: [savnet] Some words about the BoF

Hi, Eric:

For the problem space, I think SAVNET wants just to find the general solution for validating the source, which can be deployed incrementally and in wider scenarios than the current existing mechanisms.

If we can finalize such solutions, the network operators will be free of DDoS attack for the services that runs on their networks.

There are challenges to accomplish this aim, but it deserves us to achieve it.

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

On Mar 24, 2022, at 20:09, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote:

As the responsible AD for this BoF, I would like to thank the chairs and presenters for a well-run BoF and clear and articulated presentations. I also appreciated the many questions, i.e., there is interest in this domain.

Just to clarify what I said in the mike, as an individual contributor [1]:

1.	Well-defined problem space
2.	Are there only 2 solutions in this problem space ?

So, my *personal* conclusion is that it is too early to create a WG but this decision is not mine but IESG one.

Regards

-éric

[1] as we were running out of time, I forgot to mention that those comments were without my AD hat. Sorry for the confusion.

-- 
savnet mailing list
savnet@ietf.org <mailto:savnet@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savnet