Re: [lisp] Call for interest in working on security

[Luigi Iannone <luigi at net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>]

Eliot,

I agree with you, let me just add a clarification

On Sep 26, 2009, at 16:26 , Eliot Lear wrote:

> Luigi,
>
> > Discussing if ALT provides the same level of security like BGP is  
> > IMHO
> > a waste of time.

My point here was that the security of ALT should be discussed in the  
ALT spec, not in the general security document.
If we start talking about ALT in the general security framework we  
will focus on ALT and will miss the bigger picture.

Luigi




> > What level of security a   mapping system has to
> > guarantee/provide/comply with?
> > This is the kind of question we should answer.
>
> I think both questions are valid.  We need to answer the former before
> letting something loose out on the network.  In order to do that there
> needs to be some comparison.  That having been said, I would imagine
> that the comparison is made easier by answering your 2nd question,
> because quite frankly it has GOT to be possible to do better than what
> is out there today.  The question I've always hit against is whether  
> you
> can do so in a way that doesn't concentrate operational risk into a  
> few
> components, something that is somewhat antithetical to most L3 dogma.
>
> Eliot