[pim] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-p2mp -policy-ping-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 11/09/2025 21:25, Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) wrote:
> Hi Gorry
>
> My apologies for missing this email.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> This document is the extension of RFC 6425 so I agree and added a sentence that security considerations of section 8 of RFC 6425 should be followed.
>
> Also I fixed the NiT.
>
> I hope this addresses your concern?
>
> Thanks
> Hooman

Thanks for your reply,

My request was simply to learn out more about how this particular method 
would provide rate-limiting (or congestion control). A useful starting 
point would be to look at about whether the requirement for 
rate-limiting inSection 6 of RFC 4379 applies.

I look forward to understanding this and was hoping that it would then 
be possible to add some text to this proposed specification, although 
I'd suggest in a modern specification the requirements for safe sharing 
of the Internet needs to be in the body of the specification, not just 
discussed as a security consideration.

Best wishes,

Gorry

(WIT AD)

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker<[email protected]> 
> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 6:13 AM
> To: The IESG<[email protected]>
> Cc:[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]
> Subject: Gorry Fairhurst's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
>
> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
>
>
>
> Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-15: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer tohttps://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for preparing this document.
>
> As I understand, the described mechanism generates a response over a protocol that is not rate-limited or congestion controlled. Therefore, I'd like to see text that guards against a Denial-of-Service attack to send MPLS echo requests/replies that seek to increase their workload. As such, I suggest a warning/scoping is added that this traffic needs to avoid sending/processing such requests, possibly in the last para of the introduction.
>
> RFC 6425 includes some text that might be a suitable starting point:
>
>     As is described in [RFC4379], to avoid potential denial-of-service
>     attacks, it is RECOMMENDED to regulate the LSP ping traffic passed to
>     the control plane.  A rate limiter should be applied to the incoming
>     LSP ping traffic.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> NiT:
>
> /As specified in section 3.2 of [RFC6425] ,/As specified in section 3.2 of [RFC6425],/
> - Please remove space before comma.
>
>

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]