Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-pals-seamless-vccv-02

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Phillip,
>
> Many thanks for your review.
>
> As you rightly call out, this is indeed an incremental addition — I might add for emphasis a very incremental change.
>
> One point of clarification, however, is that this solution as defined does _not_ use BGP. The relevant control protocols’ security considerations are addressed in RFC 5085. This is not 'IPsec pixy-dust' — if you follow the pointers, you will get to the control connection (endpoint and message) security as well as protection for data plane spoofing.


With respect, I disagree.

A collection of pointers to a dozen other documents is not a security
architecture.

I am aware that this is not BGP which is a layer 3 switching protocol.
This is layer 2 but the same security concerns apply. The fact that we
have seen nation state actors use BGP injection attacks as tools of
war demonstrate that this is a real concern.


> In re-reading the Security Considerations section (thanks again for the review), I do believe there is an area of improvement: from RFC 5885, since these PWs specify single-hop adjacencies, the document ought to specify the use of GTSM for the IP/UDP encapsulations.
>
> I’ll be happy to add that in. Please let me know if you have any concerns with it.

For an infrastructure of this scale, the security architecture should
really be described in a separate document and at length.