I'll change to SHOULD. You make good points.

Dino

On Oct 27, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Joel, Dino:
> 
> Not doing source address checks is not hurting just you as a receiver, but 
> also whoever gets the response packet. It is hurting the rest of the 
> Internet. Basically, a way to circumvent all the ingress filtering that 
> exists in the Internet today.
> 
> Note that I was not suggesting a MUST. I understand that the implementation 
> may be costly, and that is why I was suggesting a SHOULD.
> 
> Jari
> 
> On 27.10.2011 20:55, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Given that, as far as I can tell, failing to perform the source checks 
>> leaves the site using the weak ETR at risk, but does not harm anyone else,
>> and given that this is experimental,
>> it seems sufficient to leave the text the way it is.
>> 
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> 
>> On 10/27/2011 1:04 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>> On Oct 23, 2011, at 5:13 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>> Second, I wish you would have specified the source address checks 
>>>>>> better. Are there situations where you would NOT want to make a pretty 
>>>>>> strict test, i.e., that source EID maps to  source RLOC?
>>>>> Because this is work still in progress.
>>>> 
>>>> I understand that, but accepting tunnel packets without this validation 
>>>> just seems pretty open to attacks. And this is not just about LISP. In 
>>>> general, every IETF technique that comes out may have vulnerabilities that 
>>>> cause trouble not just for that technology but also for other things in 
>>>> the Internet. I'm worried that this coyld be an attack vector to attack 
>>>> other things in the Internet in the future. Can we agree on a middle 
>>>> ground, e.g., make the MAY a SHOULD? I'd be much happier with that…
>>> 
>>> I hear you loud and clear. But no one may implement this beacuse it is hard 
>>> and expensive. We need to solve it another way and we are not ready to 
>>> document it yet.
>>> 
>>> Dino
>> 
>> 
> 

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Reply via email to