Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Draft Status....

From: "Senthilkumar Ayyasamy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 03:52:22 -0500

>  which part of MPLS you mean.
>  If IGP extensions for TE, then we're essentially talking about
>  extended topology info in IGPs and I have no problem with this,
>  if signalling or VPNs, then no--let's walk first.

Some of relevant issues of st&r relevant to MPLS are:

- Security issues wrt routing of traffic between
two independent VPN . I remember reading a draft which
talking about this situation.

- label spoofing issues when BGP carries label information.

- When considering IGP extensions for TE, security issues
relevant to OSPF will hold. But control traffic generated in
TE extensions will be more. I dont know whether there will
be major security issues here. Some  mpls experts out here
can enlighten us.

- senthil

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

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

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:20:22 -0700

Senthil

> talking about this situation.

outside the scope

> - label spoofing issues when BGP carries label information.

ditto

> relevant to OSPF will hold.

right

> But control traffic generated in

TE signaling is outside the scope as well.

Focusing the efforts is essential for making progress,
especially at this stage.

Alex