Hi Joel, On 03/06/2022 21:38, Joel Halpern wrote:
While working groups can do all sorts of things, the expected results of this work would be a new or extended mechanisms for routers to tell other routers what address prefixes
Clarifying question: if prefixes are what are being validated why does the name mention addresses and the text "current SAV mechanisms" (where A==address presumably)? Ta, S.
they will be using as source address for packets they will be forwarding. These are not the individual addresses of users. And, conversely, this is exactly the information one needs to perform source address spoof prevention. (Whether the proposed / expected mechanisms will actually provide improved information is part of what has to be determined.)Further, we have specified that the problem and requirements will be spelled out before any solutions are examined by the working group. So we can confirm that there is indeed a problem to solve.This is not "extend SAVI individual host registrations into ISPs." I have no problem including privacy in the analysis. But I am much less concerned than I was (and yes Stephen, I did take your concerns seriously) when we did the SAVI work.Yours, Joel
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
