Subject: [RPSEC] Multicast Routing System Security....

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:22:38 -0400 (EDT)

Y'all:

Due tosome questions which came up elsewhere, I had a brief
conversation with the ADs about multicast routing security. The
impression I have from everyone thus far is that the msec group
is mostly concerned with securing multicast streams, and not the
multicast routing system. As such, I think it's appropriate to
assume this group is going to dwal with the same areas of concern
for multicast routing system security as unicast--defining
requirements and such, and letting the actual working groups work
on the protocol specific mechanisms, with this group as a meeting
ground between the security and multicast routing folks as
needed/etc.

Just putting this out for comments....

:-)

Russ

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

---

From: Haixiang He <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:41:29 -0400

As Thomas said in the RPsec BOF, IRTF GSEC WG has started discussing
Multicast Infrastructure Security (multicast routing system security).
The focus right now is IGMP security and we had a discussion on IGMP
Security Problem Statement and Requirements and some solutions in
Mpls.(I personally think IGMP is part of multicast routing system.)
Thanks!

Regards,

Haixiang

---

From: Yi Yang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:47:56 -0400 (EDT)

Russ,

Are you talking about Multicasting Routing Protocols (PIM and etc) or
Routing Protocols using Multicasting (OSPF/RIP and etc)? I am a little
confused here.

Yi

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:44:14 -0400 (EDT)

Okay, then we'll need some clarification, I think, which is why I
bring it up. Bil? Alex? Anyone?

:-)

Russ

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:43:27 -0400 (EDT)

PIM and such....

:-)

Russ

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:21:34 -0400 (EDT)

My (personal) take on this, after some thought, is that the work
should still be done in the protocol groups. It would be a bad
thing for a group over in the security area to work on security
systems for PIM, or other multicast routing protocols. That work
should be undertaken in the working groups for those protocols.

Similarly, I think that work undertaken to be define the security
requirements for multicast routing should also be in routing, so
it seems to me that it should be here.

:-)

Russ

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:23:38 -0700

Russ, all:

  My position is that RPSEC should deal with security requirements
  for all routing protocols (including the multicast ones), and
  function as a forum for RTG & SEC cooperation. And yes, I envision
  protocol-specific work being done within the protocol WGs with
  possible input from GSEC or other RGs if this is applicable.

  Regarding MSEC, my reading of its charter is that it is supposed
  to work on securing communication within the group (i.e. actual
  data senders and receivers) and not the routing piece of story.
  I'll let the SEC ADs correct me if necessary.

  So, I guess, I have just confirmed what Russ said in his
  first e-mail in this thread.

Alex