Source Address Validation: Use Cases and Gap Analysis
draft-li-sav-gap-analysis-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dan Li , Jianping Wu , Mingqing(Michael) Huang , Lancheng Qin , Nan Geng | ||
| Last updated | 2022-07-25 (Latest revision 2022-01-10) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document identifies the importance and use cases of source address validation (SAV) at both intra-domain level and inter-domain level (see [RFC5210]). Existing intra-domain and inter-domain SAV mechanisms, either Ingress ACL filtering [RFC2827], unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF) [RFC3704], or Enhanced Feasible-Path uRPF (EFP-uRPF) [RFC8704] has limitations in scalability or accuracy. This document provides gap analysis of the existing SAV mechanisms.
Authors
Dan Li
Jianping Wu
Mingqing(Michael) Huang
Lancheng Qin
Nan Geng
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)