Hi Stephen, We use the term of "source address validation" because when validating a packet, the packet actually carries an "address" instead of a "prefix". However, as Joel explained, the proposed solution works in the control plane, and it does not expose any user-level privacy when exchanging information between routers or ASes. It just likes that when forwarding a packet by looking up the FIB. Every packet has a destination "address" but the FIB is organized with "prefix" as the key. If there is still confusion, I am wondering whether we can change "source address validation" to "source prefix validation". Best, Dan -----邮件原件----- 发件人: savnet-bounces@xxxxxxxx <savnet-bounces@xxxxxxxx> 代表 Stephen Farrell 发送时间: 2022年6月4日 4:48 收件人: Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Alvaro Retana' <aretana.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>; iesg@xxxxxxxx; 'IETF-Discussion' <ietf@xxxxxxxx> 抄送: savnet@xxxxxxxx 主题: Re: [savnet] WG Review: Source Address Validation in Intra-domain and Inter-domain Networks (savnet) 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
