[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-rfc3682bis-05.txt: single-hop/multi-hop

Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-rfc3682bis-05.txt: single-hop/multi-hop
From: Alex Zinin
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:12:49 -0700
Folks-

 On this issue (see quotes below), how about we say in the doc:

  Implementations MUST support the single-hop (TrustRadius = 0) mode, and
  MAY support the multi-hop (TrustRadius > 0) one.

--
Alex

>> >>I think it may be useful to describe that it is possible to support only
>> >>the single-hop GTSM - which gives the most security benefit, 
>> >>anyway.  That seems to me to be much simpler to implement with the 
>> >>currently existing ACLs.
>> >
>> >Personally, I don't care for non-single-hop GTSM at all (and I think it
>> >would probably be dangerous and requires an applicability statement.

>       Its there already:

>         When a multi-hop protocol session is required, we set
>         the expected TTL value to be 255 - TrustRadius. This
>         approach provides a qualitatively lower degree of
>         security for the protocol implementing GTSM (i.e., a
>         DoS attack could theoretically be launched by
>         compromising some box in the path). However, GTSM will
>         still catch the vast majority of observed DDoS attacks
>         (launched from outside the network) against a given
>         protocol. Note that since the number of hops can change
>         rapidly in real network situations, it is considered
>         that GTSM may not be able to handle this scenario
>         adequately and an implementation MAY provide OPTIONAL
>         support.  

>> >If it would be feasible, I'd move single-hop GTSM to standards track while
>> >keeping multihop at experimental.
>>
>> I agree.  I believe the multi-hop has a less clear benefit & more holes.
>> At the least, it would be good to more clearly describe the added 
>> complexity and risks (or lesser benefit) for the multi-hop and possibly 
>> make those MAY instead of SHOULD.

>       I have no problem with this. Multi-hop GTSM has (clearly)
>       "less well defined" behavior and security properites.



_______________________________________________
Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>