> The problem I see with this is as follows. If 2 knows the situation with 3 is > problematic, then why would it still send updates to 3? Why would it not > disconnect with 3 rather than reduce the timer?
How does 2 prevent 3 from replaying the update? It doesn't matter when 2 disconnects from 3, it cannot prevent 3 from replaying it's advertisement until the timer, which is set by 1, times out. Bottom line question: Why should AS 1 control the length of time AS2 is vulnerable to replay attacks by AS' further downstream? It seems like a simple question to me. _Every_ AS along the path has an interest in making certain it's peers can't replay updates they have sent, not just the originator. Hence, the timer only makes sense if it is available at every hop. Russ
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
