SAVNET-ProblemStatement-Architecture Intra-domain-problem-statement issues

SAVNET-ProblemStatement-Architecture / Intra-domain-problem-statement

1 stars 0 forks source link

issues

Newest

Newest Most commented Recently updated Oldest Least commented Least recently updated

16. Should include security requirements. From Rudiger, offline talk [During ietf 117]

#24 XiaoTianCan opened 1 year ago
0
15. Architecture contains what I asked for. But mismatch with the requirements. From Jeff [During ietf 117]

#23 XiaoTianCan opened 1 year ago
0
14. Much duplication in the documents/slides between inter and intra-domain and external which leads me to this elephant in the room problem i keep looking at. From Jared Mauch [after ietf 115]

#22 XiaoTianCan opened 1 year ago
1
13. There are completely impossible things such as the entirety of 3.2 which must be striken in order to have a point to start with. From Jared Mauch [after ietf 115]

#21 XiaoTianCan opened 1 year ago
1
12. The problem statement as described in 3.2 builds a requirement that is not a real “requirement”. From Barry Greene [after ietf 115]

#20 XiaoTianCan opened 1 year ago
1
11. SAV may break more things than it can preventing, because the largest attack today doesn’t come from spoofed packets. From Jared Mauch [during ietf 115]

#19 XiaoTianCan opened 1 year ago
0
10. Why removed the part for misaligned incentive from intra-domain draft. Incentive problem is not technical, but a commercial one. From Anthony [during ietf 115]

#18 XiaoTianCan opened 1 year ago
0
9. Should we focus on inter domain instead of intra domain? Do you use a wrong term of intra? From Roland Dobbins [during ietf 115]

#17 XiaoTianCan opened 1 year ago
0
8. The impact of DOCSIS tools for SAV, TR-69 and FTTH tools for SAV, and DHCP Source Verify tools should be included in the Introduction section. From Barry Greene [after ietf 114]

#16 XiaoTianCan opened 1 year ago
1
7. [Others] Do you use extension header in your solution? From: Mike Ackerman.

#15 SAVNET-ProblemStatement-Architecture opened 2 years ago
0
6. [Suggestion] Suggest to reconcile by treating intra-domain and inter-domain as the sort of ideal cases, and trying to map solutions onto one or the other, rather than trying to pursue these much more complex and varied organizational structures that don't necessarily align well to either one or both. From: John O'Brien.

#14 SAVNET-ProblemStatement-Architecture opened 2 years ago
1
5. [Requirement] For Requirement #3 Incentive, how do we create direct incentive for somebody very far away to do the right thing? From: Jared Mauch.

#13 SAVNET-ProblemStatement-Architecture opened 2 years ago
0
4. [Requirement] For Requirement #2 All-direction Protection, it's impossible to validate traffic from all directions, because it may not know what is a valid route to exist there. From: Jared Mauch.

#12 SAVNET-ProblemStatement-Architecture opened 2 years ago
1
3. [Deployment] Given the lack of deployment of BCP 38, how do we get the new source address validation mechanism deployed? I’d suggest that deployment be part of the problem statement. From: Tony Li.

#11 SAVNET-ProblemStatement-Architecture opened 2 years ago
0
2. [Scenario] Why couldn’t you deploy source address validation on all routers in intra-domain network? Are these problems actually existing or because improper configurations? From: Tom Hill.

#10 SAVNET-ProblemStatement-Architecture opened 2 years ago
1
1. [Scenario] For Gap 3 Misbehaved Router, defining network elements are trusted vs untrusted is hard. If we consider “compromised router” to be in scope, it has to been clearly defined. From: Jared Mauch.

#8 SAVNET-ProblemStatement-Architecture opened 2 years ago
1