I hate to say this, because mostly I think Russ is starting at shadows,
but I think your answer does not seem to bear on the question that was
asked.
The fact that AS1 originates an advertisement means that its origination
information is subject to its lifetime control.
Which is covered by the existing work.
It is also true that the originators path lifetime limitaiton has to
serve as an upper bound on the lifetime of the advertisement.
But other than those two statements, ti does not seem that the
originator has any more rights to specify a lifetime than any other
advertiser adding path information. Nor does he have any more precise
information about what a good lifetime is for the path advertisement
than anyone else has.
This suggests that there is something odd with the lifetime / refresh
mechanism we have chosen.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/7/2011 6:02 PM, Rob Austein wrote:
At Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:53:35 -0400, Russ White wrote:
Bottom line question: Why should AS 1 control the length of time AS2
is vulnerable to replay attacks by AS' further downstream?
Because it's AS 1's prefix.
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
