> On Dec 14, 2017, at 6:22 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Alissa - > > I think I am properly understanding your question - but as you reference two > non-existent sections in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-07 > > <snip> > Section 5.2.2 of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header... > ... > Section 5.1.4 of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header > <end snip> > > I want to be sure. > Could you provide corrected references and/or the precise text which raises > your concern?
My apologies, for some reason I was looking at draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-05 instead of -07 when writing up my ballot. s/5.1.4/6.1.4/ s/5.2.2/6.2.2/ Thanks, Alissa > > Thanx. > > Les > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:42 AM >> To: The IESG <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: >> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >> >> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: Discuss >> >> 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-spring-segment-routing/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I ended up reading draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header in tandem with >> this document, and I have a question arising out of that. The trust model for >> SRv6 outlined in this document appears to be one of reliance on the fact that >> an SRH will only ever be inserted and appear within a single administrative >> domain. >> But Section 5.2.2 of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header talks about an >> SRH being inserted by a device outside of the segment routing domain. >> Which is correct? I think this is an important question because the whole >> trust model for the SR information seems to rely on out-of-band trust >> between participating nodes. >> >> I also think this is important because there is no discussion in this >> document >> of the impact of the inclusion of the SR metadata on the fingerprinting of >> the >> device that inserted it. Section 5.1.4 of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- >> header sort of alludes to this but seems to equate the capabilities of an >> active attacker (who can conduct a traceroute) with a passive attacker who >> could passively collect topology/fingerprinting information simply by >> observing SRHes flowing by on the network. If the limitation to a single >> administrative domain is meant to prevent such a passive attack (not sure if >> that is really true, but perhaps the document assumes it?), that's another >> reason that the existence of such a limitation needs to be clarified. >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Per my DISCUSS comment, I think this document needs to include some >> considerations concerning the additional metadata that SRv6 adds to the >> packet. >> This has implications not just for passive observers but also for any node >> that >> logs the SRH. >> > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
