On Jan 19, 2012, at 5:52 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> In some cases I saw the export policy ANNOUNCE ANY, is this consistent
>> with a particular AS behaving like the RIPE AS was its customer?
>
> well, if i was to take that literally, that would include internal
> prefixes, e.g. some of p2p inter-ro
Steve,
On Feb 24, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2012, at 7:46 40AM, Danny McPherson wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> the problem is that you have yet to rigorously define it and how to
>>> unambiguously and rigorously detect it. lack of that w
Nick,
On Feb 24, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 24/02/2012 20:04, Shane Amante wrote:
>> Solving for route leaks is /the/ "killer app" for BGPSEC. I can't
>> understand why people keep ignoring this.
>
> I'd be interested to hear your op
On Feb 24, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Solving for route leaks is /the/ "killer app" for BGPSEC.
>
> as would be solving world hunger, war, bad cooking, especially bad
> cooking.
>
> route leaks, as much as i understand them
> o are indeed bad ops issues
> o are not security per se
Alex,
First, I would note that there is a talk specifically on this subject coming up
at NANOG 55, which is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon from 2:30 - 3 PM. (Note,
I'm not giving the talk, just pointing out that your questions may best be
followed up face-to-face then). Anyway, see below.
O
Paul,
On May 29, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> On 2012-05-29 5:37 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
I agree with the person higher up the thread that ROVER seems like
just another distribution mechanism for what is essentially RPKI data.
>
> noting, that up-thread person also said "i ha
One correction below.
On Jun 5, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Daniel Massey wrote:
[--snip--]
> I think the first step is to step back and ask whether every operational
> model needs
> enumeration. For example, the talk yesterday by Level3 used the DNS and
> IRR
> did not need such an enumeration.
T
On Mar 9, 2011, at 00:35 MST, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> :: a real use for the diffserv bits! why not flowlabel in 6? it's been
> :: looking for a use for a decade.
>
> Honestly, we figured flowlabel might actually find a use before all the
> values of di
Payam,
On Apr 4, 2011, at 18:17 MDT, Payam Chychi wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts as to the best practices of
> running multiple backbone links between 2 routers. In the past we've added
> additional links as needed, then simply enabled IS-IS when they were goo
9 matches
Mail list logo
