Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improvements-03: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improvements/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ingress/egress Access Control Lists (ACLs) are maintained which list acceptable (or alternatively, unacceptable) prefixes for the source addresses in the incoming/outgoing Internet Protocol (IP) packets. the beginning of that sentence is a bit hard to parse, but maybe it's just for me. Any packet with a source address that does not match the filter is dropped. well, that really depend on the match criteria. If the list is of unacceptable addresses and you don't match on these, then you should forward the packet. Adj-RIB-Ins did you mean Adj-RIBs-In? Figures 1 and 2 claim that EFP-uRPF works best but it has still not been described at that stage so it is a bit difficult to understand that claim. _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
