Dino,
Aren't we talking about a scenario where the victim XTR has no information
regarding the EID or LOC in its map-cache?
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 1:57 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: Sander Steffann; Roger Jorgensen; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
>
> In those cases we do mapping database RPF lookups.
>
> Dino
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dino,
> >
> > The Spoofer Project (http://spoofer.cmand.org/summary.php) offers a
> longitudinal view of BCP 38 deployment. I think that the results that they
> report validate Sander's objection. Furthermore, they may suggest that
> Sander's objection will remain valid for years to come.
> >
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 7:37 PM
> >> To: Sander Steffann
> >> Cc: Ronald Bonica; Roger Jorgensen; [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
> >>
> >>> Unfortunately this is not unlikely :( I certainly wouldn't consider
> >>> it an
> >> amazing feat... BCP38 is not implemented as much as it should be.
> >>
> >> I know there are many cases where BCP38 is not practice but more and
> >> more access providers due uRPF.
> >>
> >> You only need one in the path. And the ones that don't do it are
> >> using resources to transit packets to possible black holes.
> >>
> >> Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
