[Pals] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with COMMENT)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Pals] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: No Objection

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-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand that this document does not introduce any new mechanisms compared
to rfc6425, however, I think both documents enable an amplification attack. Is
this not a concern or should that be discussed somewhere?


_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pals] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with COMMENT)

Stewart Bryant-2


On 18/06/2017 10:11, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:

> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: No Objection
>
> 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-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I understand that this document does not introduce any new mechanisms compared
> to rfc6425, however, I think both documents enable an amplification attack. Is
> this not a concern or should that be discussed somewhere?
>
>
It is of course quite hard for an attacker to get an MPLS pkt into the
network to generate this
type of attack. More likely an error may trigger such a problem, but a
good implementation
would always rate limit the responses.

- Stewart

_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
Loading...