4. Security Considerations

This page preserves the original RFC text for the section and adds navigation metadata for the documentation site.

Original RFC Text

4.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces finer-grained flow identification mechanisms
   for DLEP.  These mechanisms expose vulnerabilities similar to
   existing DLEP messages.  An example of a threat to which traffic
   classification might be susceptible is where a malicious actor
   masquerading as a DLEP peer could inject an alternate Traffic
   Classification Data Item, changing the mapping of traffic to queues;
   this would in turn cause delay, congestion, or loss in one or more
   service classes.  Other possible threats are discussed in the
   Security Considerations section of [RFC8175] and are also applicable,
   but not specific, to traffic classification.

   The transport-layer security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175],
   along with the latest versions of [BCP195], [IEEE-802.1AE], and
   [IEEE-802.1X] at the time of this writing, can be applied to this
   document.  Implementations following the "networked deployment" model
   described in Section 4 ("Implementation Scenarios") of [RFC8175]
   SHOULD refer to [BCP195] for additional details.  The Layer 2
   security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175] can also, with some
   updates, be applied to the mechanisms defined in this document.
   Examples of technologies that can be deployed to secure the Layer 2
   link include [IEEE-802.1AE] and [IEEE-802.1X].