Hi Robert, As for “the objective of this WG was to further trim that IP prefix to indicate a more granular IP address or even ports”, it is not the case. The prefix information exchanged by the proposed solution is just the same as what is exchanged in routing protocols, without “finer-grained ” prefix information. Best, Dan 发件人: savnet-bounces@xxxxxxxx <savnet-bounces@xxxxxxxx> 代表 Robert Raszuk Joel,
+ > For the primary work of this WG, what we are concerned with is providing > the prefix information to use in that validation step. I am still concerned with the scope of this effort. IP reachability advertisement is nothing else then indicating what src addresses belong to a given site or ISP. From what I have understood so far, the objective of this WG was to further trim that IP prefix to indicate a more granular IP address or even ports. Therefore aside from privacy issues or exposing addresses and active ports for easy attacks I am still very concerned about cutting the ability to fallback to any other end to end routing path in the event of failures or even brownouts. I have seen responses - Oh we will support backup and multipath. But this does not satisfy my concern as those will be still far less limited to what is available today - which is any node as long as it has reachability or default route can forward packets towards destination. Thx, R. |