Re: [GROW] Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-00.txt> (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

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

 



Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 07:44:02PM +0900, Randy Bush:
> >> and you are kinda peotected by the community not being well-known,
> >> i.e. different for each upstream. the attacker has to know the
> >> community for each upstream and be able to not only inject the prefix
> >> but also tag it with the correct community for each upstream.
> > 
> > Your argument comes down to "security through obscurity"
> 
> no.  non-transitiveness through local naming, the reason this has not
> allowed serious damage in current practice.
> 
> randy

a receiving operator could limit scope, if they chose.  something like

route-map foo p 10
 match community blackhole
 match as-path ^([0-9]+_){1,2}$
 set ip next-hop null0
route-map foo d 20
 match community blackhole
route-map foo ...




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