On Nov 10, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Tony Li wrote: > > > I agree, but as you correctly point out, SIDR is an engineering solution. If > you dislike that particular solution, you're of course free to propose > others. However, the correct forum for engineering solutions is the IETF.
I was hoping for some research and fresh thinking related to rate+state+autonomous operations &security in inter-domain routing, hence my message here. I don't have a solution envisaged, I just know what I'm seeing in current work is err.., going to present some challenges. I was hoping for "architectural alternatives, research and experimentation in secure routing architectures and algorithms being encouraged, with an aim to understand whether new directions can provide effective solutions, to work out candidate designs as necessary for a complete solution, and to fully understand both the gains and the tradeoffs that the new solutions may bring." (some of that text may sound familiar :-) As a side benefit, whether the routed protocol changes or not, using security as the fulcrum may well help foster broader consideration of alternative routed protocols... Else -- some work into scalable *static* inter-domain routing techniques and solutions might be a worthwhile endeavor *8^/ If that's not within RRG scope then I suppose I understand how we arrived where we currently are... -danny _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
