On Oct 7, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
Terry, see below...
Terry manderson wrote:
On 06/10/2009, at 11:28 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:
So legitimate transfers will breed duplicates? My recollection of
that discussion that there would be timing in place that
certificate
On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
Suppose you're ISP1, and want to sell some part of your clients to
ISP2 (this happens: mergers, splits, you name it). In other words,
you want to transfer a live, routed and used chunk of space to
another party. How would you execute
Hi Robert,
On 8/10/09 2:47 AM, Robert Kisteleki rob...@ripe.net wrote:
[..]
so two organisations, at some point in time, will have the ability to
issue valid and conflicting statements.
They have that ability today, it is being used and it's useful. Would you
want to take that ability
On 8/10/09 3:13 AM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
Suppose you're ISP1, and want to sell some part of your clients to
ISP2 (this happens: mergers, splits, you name it). In other words,
you want to transfer a live, routed and
On Oct 7, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
My concern isn't about collision/overlap of ROAs at the bottom
of the RPKI hierarchy, that seems perfectly reasonably to me if
the operator so chooses.
But what decision should the relying party make? in other words how
does the
relying
On 8/10/09 11:14 AM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
But what decision should the relying party make? in other words how
does the
relying party know that collision was intentional?
I'd think it wouldn't matter with the RP, if the ROAs
are there then accept those prefixes from
On Oct 7, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
Depending on which certificate the Relying Party believes, they
might reject
(based on current WG interpretation of a ROA) the other valid
announcements
at their router. (at least that is how I'm reading it - please
correct me if
On Oct 7, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
On 8/10/09 3:04 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Operators will always opt to keep their network alive, anything that
risks keeping the network operational will have a hard time finding a
place in networks.
I can think of other
On Oct 7, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
Sorry, my response was poorly worded.
My position is that we probably shouldn't allow a system into play
that can
produce a fully ambiguous result.
Hrmm.. You mean like the current routing system - where at
this moment I see ~2086 (same
On Oct 7, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
The issue at hand is two different owners of a resource being able
to say
different things about that resource.
But that's not what I said - I said to make this work you'd
have the EE (owner) issue two ROAs, one for each origin -
there's
On Oct 7, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
But that's not what I said - I said to make this work you'd
have the EE (owner) issue two ROAs, one for each origin -
yes. but predicated on one owner and not two. I think we are at the
same
place :-)
Yep, and one minor clarification
11 matches
Mail list logo
