Re: [v6ops] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-03: (with COMMENT)

[Tore Anderson <[e-mail]>]

* "Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>

> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-03: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> I would have thought that the BR and ER would be new targets
> for DoS attack, however, I'm not sure those are really
> different in this respect compared to other existing routers
> in a data centre - did the wg consider if there are any such
> differences that are worth noting? (I thought about it for 2
> minutes, without finding any;-)

Hello Stephen,

The scalability characteristics of an BR/ER is indeed more similar to
that of a traditional IP router. This is due to them operating in a
completely stateless mode, handling one packet at a time, and
forgetting everything about it immediately after.

A stateless translator does not contain any flow tracking table, so the
number of concurrent flows (and the flow initiation rate) is
irrelevant. This is mentioned briefly in section 1.2.

I hope that answers your comment.

Tore