Re: [LISPmob-users] [nvo3] Mapping System Requirements and draft-padma-ideas-problem-statement-00.txt

[Padma Pillay-Esnault]

Hi David

Thanks for your comments.
I take note of your comment (2) and pointer.

Here is a pointer to the draft
 https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-padma-ideas-probl
em-statement-00.txt

Padma



On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Black, David  wrote:

> Hi Dino,
>
> Here are a couple of areas to consider:
>
> (1) I don't see any confidentiality requirements.   For this and other
> NVO3 security
> requirements, please see the security considerations section of RFC 7365
> (NVO3
> framework) and draft-ietf-nvo3-arch.  The latter contains a new paragraph
> on
> sensitivity of performance and  other monitoring data gathered by the
> control
> plane - that paragraph was added at the behest of both Security ADs:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7365#section-5
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-08#section-16
>
> (2) This item:
>
> > >   7.  Message rate-limiting and other heuristics must be part of the
> > >   foundational support of the mapping system to protect the system
> > >   from invalid overloaded conditions.
>
> suggests that congestion control is also a consideration to protect the
> network.
> If an existing congestion-controlled transport protocol (e.g., TCP, SCTP,
> DCCP) is
> not used for control traffic, then see draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis for
> discussion
> of applicable requirements:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/
>
> Thanks, --David
>
>

Re: [LISPmob-users] [nvo3] Mapping System Requirements and draft-padma-ideas-problem-statement-00.txt

[Dino Farinacci]

> The optional requirement for confidentiality was added for potential use
> cases where only some users are allowed to access information about
> others. Motivation: snooping mapping system informatation may be a way
> to track the behavior of other users.

Especially if GPS coordinates were part of the RLOC-records.

Dino