nanog mailing list archives
Re: IGMP and PIM protection
From: Anton Kapela <tkapela () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:32:11 -0500
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Stefan Fouant <sfouant () shortestpathfirst net> wrote:
I think OP meant that he only wants an integrity check of the control traffic, not confidentiality, hence the statement that he does not want to encrypt the control traffic.
I read the OP to mean this, too. Musing on the idea for a moment, it would surely be 'nice' to somehow know that PIM v2 joins from some other network were, in fact, 'good' or somehow well-formed, rate-limited, and/or somehow 'safe' to accept & hold state for. However, it seems as if the OP isn't interested in inter-domain "rp protection" -- and probably more interested in authenticating more local igmp v2/3 joins for STB's and the like. Glen, clarify? -Tk
Current thread:
- IGMP and PIM protection Glen Kent (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Peter Hicks (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Glen Kent (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Scott Morris (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Glen Kent (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Dobbins, Roland (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Glen Kent (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Dobbins, Roland (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Scott Morris (Dec 23)
- RE: IGMP and PIM protection Stefan Fouant (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Anton Kapela (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Glen Kent (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Glen Kent (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Glen Kent (Dec 23)
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection Peter Hicks (Dec 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IGMP and PIM protection David Barak (Dec 23)