At Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:08:11 -0500,
"John G. Scudder" wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2016, at 9:02 PM, Chris Morrow wrote:
> > Of course, just wiping out the prefixes in flight
>
> Right, exactly. The OV "attack" is just a baroque version of
> underclaiming, only it's an inferior version because there's
On Nov 29, 2016, at 9:02 PM, Chris Morrow wrote:
> Of course, just wiping out the prefixes in flight
Right, exactly. The OV "attack" is just a baroque version of underclaiming,
only it's an inferior version because there's a greater audit trail.
> and stitching back
> together the tcp session..
At Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:23:55 -0500,
"John G. Scudder" wrote:
>
> On Nov 13, 2016, at 1:40 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana)
> wrote:
> > C1. The reference to rfc7607 should be Informative.
>
> Done (in -10 candidate source).
>
> > C2. [Major] Security Considerations. I think that there is one
> >
> > C2. [Major] Security Considerations. I think that there is one
> > consideration that should be mentioned in this section: Given that the
> > largest value is preferred (2 = invalid), there is an attack vector where a
> > router in the path (yes, even an internal router) can inject a commu
On Nov 13, 2016, at 1:40 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> C1. The reference to rfc7607 should be Informative.
Done (in -10 candidate source).
> C2. [Major] Security Considerations. I think that there is one consideration
> that should be mentioned in this section: Given that the largest
