Hi,
Thanks for this update, there are some good additions.
Broadly speaking, there are two types of limited domain protocols:
Layer-2 type limited domain protocols: These are protocols that are intended to
be used within a single LAN segment.
Transport type service (for example MPLS and SRv6): These protocols are
intended to provide a transport service, and are intended to remain within a
single administrative domain such as a Enterprise or a Service Provider network.
I think this is a useful distinction, but there's an inconsistency with the last sentence
of the Introduction, that ends with "not intended to remain within a single
administrative domain."
Also, MPLS and SRv6 are example that only work for the ITU meaning of "transport". To
cover the IETF meaning of "transport" you need another couple of examples, such as a
corporate VPN (likely based on IPSec, but that's only one option) and the RFC 8994 Autonomic
Control Plane.
I was also wondering whether there is also a third type, application layer
limited domains, where the limitations and security are applied regardless of
transport. That would be out of scope for int-area, of course.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 04-Mar-25 05:48, [email protected] wrote:
Internet-Draft draft-wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains-04.txt is now
available.
Title: Safe(r) Limited Domains
Authors: Warren Kumari
Andrew Alston
Éric Vyncke
Suresh Krishnan
Donald Eastlake
Name: draft-wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains-04.txt
Pages: 12
Dates: 2025-03-03
Abstract:
Documents describing protocols that are only intended to be used
within "limited domains" often do not clearly define how the boundary
of the limited domain is implemented and enforced, or require that
operators of these limited domains perfectly filter at all of the
boundary nodes of the domain to protect the rest of the global
Internet from these protocols and vice-versa.
This document discusses some design principles and offers mechanisms
to allow protocols that are designed to operate in a limited domain
"fail-closed" rather than "fail-open", thereby making these protocols
safer to deploy on the Internet.
These mechanism are not applicable to all protocols intended for use
in a limited domain, but if implemented on certain classes of
protocols, they can significantly reduce the risks.
The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains/
There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains-04.html
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains-04
Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
