|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: not rewriting next-hop, pointing default, ...
On Sep 11 15:54, Randy Bush wrote: } Subject: Re: not rewriting next-hop, pointing default, ... > LSR is actually a significant security issue. So, while I do > understand and am sympathetic to the operational debugging > issues that LSR addresses, I think that requiring a peer to > enable LSR more than 2 hops inside their network from the > outside world is unreasonable. % So, you're comfortable with asking for LSR at the IX and a hop behind? "Comfortable" isn't the word I'd choose. Ideally, I'd filter out LSR entirely [1], but there are real operational issues. Letting LSR in two hops lets outsiders trying to debug (e.g. some routing problem) at least perform first-level fault-isolation so they know whose NOC to call for further debugging assistance. So I view the 2-hop notion as an attempt at "reasonable compromise". > In a world where SSH were available in cisco routers and/or > IPsec were more widely deployed, I might have different views. % K5 does not give you sufficient warm fuzzies? No, I'm afraid that Kerberos 5 doesn't give me sufficient warm fuzzies. I don't care to be very detailed on a public list such as NANOG. I will note that aside from my non-public concerns, Kerberos-5 is expensive to deploy and maintain. Kerberos can also adversely impact network availability if it isn't installed in exactly the right way (surprisingly few folks seem to do it right). Ran [email protected] [1] DISCLAIMERS: - I'm not a security expert, so my opinion probably doesn't mean very much in the grand scheme of things. - I am NOT with @Home's Security Group, which is ably managed by Mike StJohns, who is a Security Expert. So don't blame them for my comments. - I don't make policy for @Home, so my opinions are just mine not my employer's. - I haven't had enough coffee yet today. :-)
|