Re: [Idr] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-chen-rfc4893bis-00.txt]

[David Freedman <david.freedman at uk.clara.net>]

> In the case of a malform AS4_PATH attribute,  rejecting the route would
> also result in the loss of connectivity, and thus can also be used as a
> remote attack vehicle.

Yes, but the attack would be constrained to all prefixes with the
malformed AS4_PATH attribute and not all prefixes received over the session.

> 
> Considering the following factors:
> 
>     1) the tradeoffs,
>     2) especially the concern for the remote attack,
>     3) AS4_PATH being optional,
> 
> I believe that what is proposed in the draft (accepting the routes) is
> more preferred than rejecting the route.

How about not making it mandatory to accept it?

Dave.



_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr