If that replaced the last edit, that would resolve my concern.Yours,JoelSent
via the Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Nick Buraglio
<[email protected]> Date: 11/6/25 1:44 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Joel
Halpern <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [spring] Re:
I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-09.txt Joel, Would Suresh's text
aid in that clarification? Following the direction of [RFC8402], the current
document assumes that SRv6 is deployed within a trusted domain and that the
traffic is filtered at the domain boundaries. Traffic MUST be filtered at the
domain boundaries. Thus, most of the attacks described in this document are
limited to within the domain (i.e., internal attackers).On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at
12:22 PM Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
From where I sit, I can't see how the detailed text in 7.1 (MUST
be filtered) comports with the new text that says that the trust
boundary can be policy without mechanism.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/6/2025 12:16 PM, Nick Buraglio
wrote:
Joel,
In section 7.1 we provide a fair amount of detail surrounding
filtering a trusted domain. For example:
7.1. Trusted Domains and Filtering
7.1.1. Overview
As specified in [RFC8402]:
By default, SR operates within a trusted domain. Traffic
MUST be
filtered at the domain boundaries.
The use of best practices to reduce the risk of tampering
within the
trusted domain is important. Such practices are discussed
in
[RFC4381] and are applicable to both SR-MPLS and SRv6.
Following the spirit of [RFC8402], the current document
assumes that
SRv6 is deployed within a trusted domain. Traffic MUST be
filtered
at the domain boundaries. Thus, most of the attacks
described in
this document are limited to within the domain (i.e.,
internal
attackers).
There is quite a lot dedicated to protecting the TD and what it
means if it isn't.
Would that be sufficient?
nb
On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 9:48 AM
Joel Halpern <[email protected]>
wrote:
Speaking
strictly as a participant, I don't see how a trust domain
boundary can exist purely as a polciy demarcation without
enforcement
mechanism. An organization may have a boundary on where it
wants to run
SRv6 by policy.. But there needs to be an enforced boundary
(either at
or around that policy boundary) or folks who are not trusted
will be
able to send in SRv6 packets with arbitrary SRH, destination,
etc.
This change to the wording does not seem to me as a
participant to be
correct.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/6/2025 9:38 AM, [email protected]
wrote:
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-09.txt is
now available. It is
> a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking
(SPRING) WG of the
> IETF.
>
> Title: Segment Routing IPv6 Security Considerations
> Authors: Nick Buraglio
> Tal Mizrahi
> Tian Tong
> Luis M. Contreras
> Fernando Gont
> Name: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-09.txt
> Pages: 30
> Dates: 2025-11-06
>
> Abstract:
>
> SRv6 is a traffic engineering, encapsulation and
steering mechanism
> utilizing IPv6 addresses to identify segments in a
pre-defined
> policy. This document discusses security
considerations in SRv6
> networks, including the potential threats and the
possible mitigation
> methods. The document does not define any new
security protocols or
> extensions to existing protocols.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft
is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security/
>
> There is also an HTML version available at:
>
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-09.html
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-09
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
