BCP38 making it work, solving problems
Patrick W Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Wed Oct 20 06:37:13 UTC 2004
On Oct 19, 2004, at 1:14 PM, JP Velders wrote:
> jacking the connection is in a completely different class as someone
> bombarding you with a bunch of forged BGP packets to close down a
> session. Without that MD5 checksum you are quite vulnerable to that. I
> haven't seen a vendor come up with a solution to that, because the
> problem is on a much more vendor-neutral level...
We haven't talked about this in a few months, so what the hell....
Have you actually done the work to see how many packets it takes to
shut down a session with and without MD5 enabled? (The question is
rhetorical, since your post shows that you have not.)
Back on topic, the MD5 debate is not an exact apples-to-apples
comparison of BCP38. Stopping people from shutting down your BGP
sessions is not the same as letting your customer hurt me while
claiming to be a third party.
Put another way, MD5 on BGP sessions is a personal choice per network.
I made my decision. You are welcome and encouraged to make your own.
Neither will effect the other, except where our two networks meet.
(And then I am positive we can come to some mutual understanding.)
BCP38 is not a personal decision. Not implementing it hurts the whole
Internet, not just your little corner.
More information about the NANOG