Subject: [RPSEC] Potential Requirements New Thread

From: "Dennis Beard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:53:14 -0500

Let's remain with a charter that deals with security of routing protocols
and not the routing system per se.  Having said that, can we list
specifically what is considered "protocol" and not discuss "system"?  Such a
list would reinforce our charter statement.  These specifics can be shown to
the WG with a proviso that our charter would be modified to clarify what we
mean by routing protocol.

Start the list here as the previous thread is getting too long.
1.
2.
3.
etc.

Regards,

Dennis Beard

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:30:58 -0500 (EST)

> Let's remain with a charter that deals with security of
> routing protocols and not the routing system per se.  Having
> said that, can we list specifically what is considered
> "protocol" and not discuss "system"?  Such a list would
> reinforce our charter statement.  These specifics can be
> shown to the WG with a proviso that our charter would be
> modified to clarify what we mean by routing protocol.

> Start the list here as the previous thread is getting too long.

So, I'll use entity here, since I don't think that a "router" is
a good term for this purpose--an entity could actually be a san
network within the network, a redistribution router representing
and entire network, an AS, or a single router.... Etc.

-- The ability to verify that the entity advertising a particular
destination as reachable is actually authorized to advertise that
destination.

-- The ability to verify that the entity claiming to be
advertising a particular piece of information is actually the
entity which is advertising it.

-- The ability to verify the path the update has taken.

Note there is a major problem with this last one--in that the
path an update takes is no necessarily the path the traffic will
take. In the end, after looking at this particular issue for a
while, I'm not so certain that verifying the path of a routing
update, particularly in a vector based protocol, is all that
useful....

I hope this little list will get people thinking about
more.... Some other ideas were mentioned on the list that seem
important to me as well.

:-)

Russ

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

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

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:11:16 -0500

>update, particularly in a vector based protocol, is all that

I also don't see why this is a requirement. Can anyone explain what 
fundamental routing property this requirement supports? Is it 
generic, or specific to a subset of routing protocols?

Steve