< draft-asati-pignataro-mpls-ldp-gtsm-00.txt		draft-asati-pignataro-mpls-ldp-gtsm-01.txt >
	MPLS Working Group C. Pignataro		MPLS Working Group C. Pignataro
	Internet-Draft R. Asati		Internet-Draft R. Asati
	Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems		Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
	Expires: September 6, 2011 March 5, 2011		Expires: September 12, 2011 March 11, 2011
	The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) for Label Distribution		The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) for Label Distribution
	Protocol (LDP)		Protocol (LDP)
	draft-asati-pignataro-mpls-ldp-gtsm-00		draft-asati-pignataro-mpls-ldp-gtsm-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) describes a generalized		The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) describes a generalized
	use of a packets Time to Live (TTL) (IPv4) or Hop Limit (IPv6) to		use of a packets Time to Live (TTL) (IPv4) or Hop Limit (IPv6) to
	verify that the packet was sourced by a node on a connected link,		verify that the packet was sourced by a node on a connected link,
	thereby protecting the router's IP control-plane from CPU utilization		thereby protecting the router's IP control-plane from CPU utilization
	based attacks. This technique improves security and is used by many		based attacks. This technique improves security and is used by many
	protocols. This document defines the GTSM use for Label Distribution		protocols. This document defines the GTSM use for Label Distribution
	Protocol (LDP).		Protocol (LDP).
	skipping to change at page 1, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 37 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2011.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2011.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 5, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 46 ¶
	and decide the further processing as per the [RFC5082].		and decide the further processing as per the [RFC5082].
	If an LSR that has sent LDP Link Hello with G flag = 1, but received		If an LSR that has sent LDP Link Hello with G flag = 1, but received
	LDP Link Hello with G flag = 0 from the directly-connected neighbor		LDP Link Hello with G flag = 0 from the directly-connected neighbor
	(LSR3, say), then the LSR must not enforce GTSM procedures, as		(LSR3, say), then the LSR must not enforce GTSM procedures, as
	defined in Section 3 of [RFC5082], in the forthcoming Transport		defined in Section 3 of [RFC5082], in the forthcoming Transport
	Connection with that neighbor (LSR2, say).		Connection with that neighbor (LSR2, say).
	3. IANA Considerations		3. IANA Considerations
	WIP. IANA is requested to assign the G, GTSM bit in the Common Hello		IANA is requested to assign the G, GTSM bit in the Common Hello
	Parameters TLV (see Figure 1 in Section 2.1).		Parameters TLV (see Figure 1 in Section 2.1), as per allocation
			policy defined at [I-D.asati-pignataro-mpls-ldp-iana].
	4. Security Considerations		4. Security Considerations
	This document increases the security for LDP, making it more		This document increases the security for LDP, making it more
	resilient to off-link attacks.		resilient to off-link attacks.
	5. Acknowledgments		5. Acknowledgments
	The authors of this document do not make any claims on the		The authors of this document do not make any claims on the
	originality of the ideas described. The concept of GTSM for LDP has		originality of the ideas described. The concept of GTSM for LDP has
	been proposed a number of times, and is documented in both the		been proposed a number of times, and is documented in both the
	Experimental and Standards Track specifications of GTSM. Among other		Experimental and Standards Track specifications of GTSM. Among other
	people, we would like to acknowledge Enke Chen and Albert Tian for		people, we would like to acknowledge Enke Chen and Albert Tian for
	their document "TTL-Based Security Option for the LDP Hello Message".		their document "TTL-Based Security Option for the LDP Hello Message".
	6. References		6. References
	6.1. Normative References		6.1. Normative References
			[I-D.asati-pignataro-mpls-ldp-iana]
			Pignataro, C. and R. Asati, "Label Distribution Protocol
			(LDP) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
			Considerations Update",
			draft-asati-pignataro-mpls-ldp-iana-01 (work in progress),
			March 2011.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP		[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
	Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.		Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
	[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., and C.		[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., and C.
	Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism		Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
	(GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007.		(GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007.
End of changes. 5 change blocks.
	5 lines changed or deleted		13 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/