North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IX port security

  • From: Andy Davidson
  • Date: Sun Feb 24 10:59:59 2008

On 23 Feb 2008, at 11:19, Greg VILLAIN wrote:

Thinking back about this thread we've had lately around IXes, I have some extra questions.
It is I assume the IX's responsibility to protect members from harming each other through the peering LAN.

That depends what you mean by protect. Any IX participant must remember that they're sharing an infrastructure with (by and large) competitors, and that there are particular miscreant activities that you as an IX participant must guard against, which your IX operators can't completely protect you from (I'm thinking pointing default, or attacks on port-facing router interfaces.)

All of your suggestions are very sane, with this comment

- re 3/ should a certain number of allowed mac-addresses be configured to the port (1 or 2) ? or should the customer's port mac be explicitly configured on the port ?

This is largely down to local policy - one mac one port is sane, but depending on how your exchange has evolved and the services it offers, I can see the case for permitting different macs on different vlans too. Port security violations are normally caused by participants plugging IXes into a switch which ends up running some kind of chatty protocol, and by participants changing l3 interfaces connected to the exchange without informing IX support, rather than loops - but loops do happen, so define a policy and apply it strictly.

- more importantly, is there any other standard precaution that I'm missing and that should be considered ?

Euro-IX are working on a bcp of exchange recommendations, including this point. Perhaps we should have a conversation offlist about these topics, and perhaps I can introduce you to the euro-ix members working on the document.

Best wishes
Andy Davidson,