nanog mailing list archives
Re: IGMP and PIM protection
From: Scott Morris <swm () emanon com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:24:44 -0500
So we're looking to complicate things for the same of complicating them? Using a predictable "security" doesn't exactly make things secure does it? On the links that you are running PIM or IGMP on, do you not have a predictable set of clients and therefore problems? Or are we trying to protect against something I'm not thinking of? ;) Scott Glen Kent wrote:
Would encrypting multicast not fundamentally break the concept of multicast itself, unless you're encrypting multicast traffic over a backbone?No, i wasnt alluding to encrypting the multicast traffic. I was thinking of using ESP-NULL (AH is optional) for the IGMP/PIM packets. Affably, Kent
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)