Subject: [lisp] #69: Inadequate solution for ETR overclaims (from Y. Rekhter's review)

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:22:08 -0000

#69: Inadequate solution for ETR overclaims (from Y. Rekhter's review)
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter:  luigi@…                        |       Owner:                 
    Type:  technical                      |      Status:  new            
Priority:  minor                          |   Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                              |    Keywords:                 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Section 6.1.5.1

 This section correctly identifies an attack where an ETR overclaims,
 saying that it owns a larger span of prefixes than it really does. The
 proposed solutions seem inadequate; in particular, the limiting the
 mask-length that you'll accept from a given ETR seems weak. I.e., how
 could an ITR determine a "configured prefix length" for a given EID
 prefix?

 This is a serious deficiency. It is somewhat analogous to the weakness
 of the BGP routing system, except that it is much less amenable to
 auditing than BGP (since the mapping data is only presented on demand,
 an auditor can't simply get a feed) and there are many more machines
 playing than in the BGP system.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/69>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:22:33 -0000

Priority:  major                          |   Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Changes (by luigi@…):

  * priority:  minor => major

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/69#comment:1>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:01:18 -0000

Description changed by luigi@…:

> playing than in the BGP system.

New description:

 '''This is Comment 25 of Rekhter's review'''

 Section 6.1.5.1

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/69#comment:2>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues