[45577] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Ethernet EP - MAC Address Filtering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Fri Feb 8 17:03:29 2002
Reply-To: <deepak@ai.net>
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak@ai.net>
To: "David McGaugh" <david_mcgaugh@eli.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:02:37 -0500
Message-ID: <GPEOJKGHAMKFIOMAGMDIMEDFJAAA.deepak@ai.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <3C643C2B.5F3437AD@eli.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I assume you mean a non-peer defaulting to you, yes?
With wirespeed ACLs one could filter packets not terminated on your network
at your point of ingress.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
David McGaugh
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:59 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Ethernet EP - MAC Address Filtering
Actually, I was more speaking in terms of applying the filters to your
router port as an Exchange Point Member to prevent another unscrupulous
exchange point member from default routing you or other things nasty.
-Dave
Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> David McGaugh
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:18 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Ethernet EP - MAC Address Filtering
>
> Just curious if anyone is performing MAC Address Filtering at any of
> the Ethernet Exchange Points. If so has it been found to be easy to
> administer or difficult where by peers may be changing Layer 3 devices
> or Interfaces without notice? Alternately is MAC Address Filtering
> considered an unneeded security measure?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> ----
>
> Speaking of this, is MAC Address filtering [at an IX] really designed to
> eliminate the possibility of new hardware showing up on the port or is it
> more the idea of keeping lots of boxes from showing up directly [like
> hanging another switch off the port]. If its the latter, a seemingly
> sensible approach would be to limit the number of unique MAC addresses to
> like 2-4 per port.
>
> This way you can change your equipment without prior notice, but you can't
> (as easily) violate the integrity of the switching fabric.
>
> I know for our network ports we limit to no more than 2 unique MACs in a
> certain time period [~5 minutes or so] which again, allows swapping of
> equipment without compromising anything that MAC layer filtering is
supposed
> to protect.
>
> Deepak Jain
> AiNET
