Subject: [Pals] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 02:11:44 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand that this document does not introduce any new mechanisms compared
to rfc6425, however, I think both documents enable an amplification attack. Is
this not a concern or should that be discussed somewhere?

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:19:53 +0100

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping/
It is of course quite hard for an attacker to get an MPLS pkt into the 
network to generate this
type of attack. More likely an error may trigger such a problem, but a 
good implementation
would always rate limit the responses.

- Stewart