Re: [savnet] WG Review: Source Address Validation in Intra-domain and Inter-domain Networks (savnet)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Hiya,

Sorry, I don't mean to be disruptive but I'm not at a point
where I feel that me offering charter text is the right way
to go - I clearly don't understand the proposal well enough
for that.

On 03/06/2022 21:56, Joel Halpern wrote:
If you want to suggest some edits to make clear that we are talking about prefixes, please do so.  I am probably too close to the document to see where that would be useful.

Yours,

Joel

On 6/3/2022 4:47 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

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)?

I'd still be interested in an answer to the above btw,

Cheers,
S.

PS: Dealing in prefixes may not of course make much of a
difference as ISPs may hand out /56's which is the case for
me. One'd also have to consider VPNs of various flavours
maybe before understanding the privacy impacts. So, just
to be clear, I'm not saying "addresses bad, prefixes good":-)



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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux