Re: [RAM] Re: draft-bagnulo-lisp-threat-01

[Dino Farinacci <dino at cisco.com>]

> from a security analysis perspective, i guess an important question  
> would be if in LISP 3, TR also learn through tunneled data packets  
> and MAP-Reply packets as described in the draft-farinacci-lisp-01.  
> If yes, then we need to see if the threats identified in the threat  
> analysis draft also apply (but it is likely to be the case, if no  
> additional measures are taken to prevent them)

Yes, I agree. We are assuming at this point that CONS and NERD are  
control plane based and do not have data-triggered Map-Replies. Using  
APT, it depends. Because the design indicates that you send packet  
along the mapping service topology. That is a bit different where  
there isn't data plane triggered mappings but the data is sent over a  
control-plane. Much different than a LISP 1 and 1.5 approach.

Dino

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram