Subject: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 6: Consistent Use of Blackhole

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:13:18 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Sandy brought up, some time back, that the term blackhole didn't appear to
be used consistently throughout the threats draft. Does the WG feel this is
true? What could be done to the draft to clean this up, and make it better?

Russ

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

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

---

From: Jean-Jacques Puig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:23:04 +0200

> true? What could be done to the draft to clean this up, and make it better?

Looks like blackhole is in effect used unconsistently throughout the
draft, though it appears only twice in current version :). I think that
it's worth considering that a blackhole is the damage part of a threat
consequence as stated in section 3.1.2.

The other occurence is (same section):
   It
   might be possible to design a security solution that protected
   against an attack that eavesdropped on one destination's traffic
   without protecting against an attack that overwhelmed a router.  Or
   that prevented a starvation attack against one host, but not against
   a net wide blackhole. 

Is a starvation attack against a blackhole possible ? It would be
attacking a damage, wouldn't it  ? Correct rephrasing may be:

	  Or
   that prevented a starvation attack against one host, but not against
   a net wide resources.

Starvation of net wide resources may, as a consequence, result in a kind of net wide blackhole.

This was my 2cts

-- 
Jean-Jacques Puig

[homepage] http://www-lor.int-evry.fr/~puig/