The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2002-Dec> msg00198



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Fwd: Re: Fwd: MPLS VPN

  • From: Roger Clark Williams <rogerw@nordlink.com>
  • Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:02:22 -0500
  • Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:35:45 -0500
  • To: MPLS-ops Mailing List <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
  • X-Sender: rogerw@together.net@207.69.200.148

Got it, Guber, and it is a good point. I had stayed too theoretical, you 
got to the nuts and bolts. Thank you.

Roger Williams


>X-Originating-IP: [203.106.49.226]
>From: "NOC Ops" <theguber@hotmail.com>
>To: rogerw@nordlink.com
>Subject: Re: [MPLS-OPS]: Fwd: MPLS VPN
>Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 04:01:21 +0000
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Dec 2002 04:01:21.0779 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[1D27DC30:01C2AFB8]
>
>Yes...however....
>
>If you can gain access to a PE then it is rather an easy task to debug an 
>IP or MPLS packet...and that is my point.
>
>To gain access to an ATM or Frame switch you need to be "inside" the 
>network itself...IE: an employee of the Telco or have physical access to 
>the Central Office gear. Customers inherrently "trust" Telco's so this has 
>not neccessarily been an issue. Can be done on virtually any transmission 
>medium, even leased lines.
>
>Even if you could gain access to an ATM switch there are not exactly many 
>freeware applications out there to debug ATM traffic..it takes a certain 
>skill set...
>
>So yes I understand Wulf's point, (IE: That Telcos are to be "trusted") 
>but I would alway advise any enterprise to run encryption when being 
>offered MPLS/VPN's since the PE's are vulnerable and it does not take a 
>Phd to debug the traffic.
>
>
>
>>From: Roger Clark Williams <rogerw@nordlink.com>
>>To: "NOC Ops" <theguber@hotmail.com>
>>Subject: Re: [MPLS-OPS]: Fwd: MPLS VPN
>>Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 21:39:03 -0500
>>
>>Guber, I agree with a point you are raising, that one can often telnet to 
>>unprotected routers, and often more easily and with more destructive 
>>capacity than might be available with switches. Your point is totally 
>>valid, but I think Wulf's point was slightly different. He was saying 
>>that the traffic itself, whether by FR or ATM,  is unprotected in the 
>>sense that it is not encrypted or in some way made invisible or 
>>unavailable to someone who has access to the traffic. In the best of all 
>>possible worlds no outsiders could get in anywhere and all SP employees 
>>would be completely, unassailably honest. In this case, unencrypted 
>>traffic would be fine - and private, the "P" in VPN. But these are not 
>>the best of all possible worlds and both your and his point is that the 
>>traffic is potentially accessible by one method or another. Therefore, if 
>>one wants security one has to define that, and then to be aware both of 
>>the level available with the technology being used as well as the demand 
>>or need for security. You have opened yet another reason to be careful in 
>>one's awareness of his/her own network's security as a customer, and of 
>>the SP's network security.
>>
>>Roger Williams
>>
>>At 01:03 AM 12/30/2002, you wrote:
>>>Wulf,
>>>
>>>I do not want to get into a religious argument here but I tend to 
>>>disagree with you on your comparison with ATM and Frame...Neither of 
>>>these type of switches have Telnet, SNMP etc, ports exposed to client 
>>>side access that have to be secured....unlike most router based MPLS 
>>>PE's which do. I have on several occassions demonstrated to operators 
>>>the ability to Telnet into their networks from Client side connections 
>>>due to poor security framework and procedures.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Wulf Losee <qx49@attbi.com>
>>>>To: MPLS-ops Mailing List <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
>>>>Subject: Re: [MPLS-OPS]: Fwd: MPLS VPN
>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 10:21:02 -0800
>>>>
>>>>Aleezah:
>>>>I would like to amplify on what Roger said. Since the LSP is solely 
>>>>within the Service Provider's network, and MPLS VPN is considered 
>>>>"secure". And certainly it is no less secure than a Frame Relay PVC or 
>>>>an ATM PVC. It is considered extremely unlikely that other corporations 
>>>>or entities are snooping the traffic that run across FR or ATM PVCs. 
>>>>Corporations put a huge amount of traffic over Frame Relay and ATM, and 
>>>>very few worry about the security of their traffic -- because the SP is 
>>>>considered to be an secure broker. However, for those corporations who 
>>>>are extra paranoid, there is no reason that they can't run IPsec VPNs 
>>>>between their sites. The MPLS VPN is transparent to them, but the SP's 
>>>>MPLS VPNs would carry the corporation's IPsec VPNs.
>>>>
>>>>MPLS VPNs are implemented by Service Providers for the purpose of TE, 
>>>>etc. While they tend to leave IPsec VPNs for their corporate customers 
>>>>to implement...
>>>>
>>>>--Wulf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 10:32 AM 12/29/02 -0500, Roger Clark Williams wrote:
>>>>>Aleezah, security is relative. To take a simple example, are you more 
>>>>>secure with a 56-bit key or a 128-bit key? It all depends on the 
>>>>>capability of those who 1) have access to the traffic, and 2) the 
>>>>>ability they can muster to crack the encryption. It is relative.
>>>>>
>>>>>With a MPLS VPN the data within the original IP packet is still in 
>>>>>clear-text format, there is no encryption. Granted, the LSP you 
>>>>>mention may be secure, but who has access to that path? Can all those 
>>>>>people be trusted completely? It is all relative.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no such thing as absolute security, there is only relatively 
>>>>>better and relatively worse security. For better security over an MPLS 
>>>>>VPN, I would use IPsec. Others will certainly argue for something 
>>>>>better, longer keys, whatever. Perhaps stenographically embedding 
>>>>>encrypted data in a file that is then encrypted within a packet that 
>>>>>itself is encrypted...... Again, it is all relative. What is the value 
>>>>>of your traffic?
>>>>>
>>>>>I would bring to your attention the very reasonable and informative 
>>>>>writings of Bruce Schneier, founder of Counterpane, and his newsletter 
>>>>>called Crypto-gram. Available to all at 
>>>>>http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram.html or send a blank message to 
>>>>>crypto-gram-subscribe@chaparraltree.com
>>>>>
>>>>>Roger Williams
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>X-Originating-IP: [203.135.5.55]
>>>>>>From: "aleezah khan" <aleezahkhan2k@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>To: rogerw@nordlink.com
>>>>>>Subject: MPLS VPN
>>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:55:22 +0000
>>>>>>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2002 14:55:22.0298 (UTC) 
>>>>>>FILETIME=[4FEA21A0:01C2AF4A]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>merry christmass to u!!
>>>>>>i need some help .i hope u can guide me...
>>>>>>In MPLS VPN with the use of  VPN identifier (RD) and secure LSP ,is 
>>>>>>data security still an issue?
>>>>>>DO you think encrypting the data is the only way to secure our data 
>>>>>>running in BGP MPLS VPN?
>>>>>>If not then what are your recommendations
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
>>>>>>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= 
>>>>>>http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf
>>>>>
>>>>>-------
>>>>>The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
>>>>>Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-------
>>>>The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
>>>>Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 3 months FREE*. 
>>>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= 
>>>http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_advancedjmf_3mf
>>>
>>>-------
>>>The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
>>>Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*.
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= 
>http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml