>> draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-02
>>
>>To prevent exposure of the internals of BGP Confederations [RFC5065],
>>a BGPsec speaker which is a Member-AS of a Confederation MUST NOT
>>sign updates sent to another Member-AS of the same Confederation.
>
> [WEG] does that mean that routes using
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 10:41 PM
> To: George, Wes
> Cc: sidr wg list
> Subject: various
>
> draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-02
>
>To prevent exposure of the internals of BGP Confederations
> [RFC5065],
>a BGPsec speaker which is a Member-AS of
to two of your comments, in my unpublished edit buffers
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-02
To prevent exposure of the internals of BGP Confederations [RFC5065],
a BGPsec speaker which is a Member-AS of a Confederation MUST NOT not
sign updates sent to another Member-AS of the same Confederati
If the router has other work, it can simply stop reading the tcp socket. That
would put the tcp into persist state and the sender will stop sending. This is
only possible if the beacons are in a separate tcp session.
--
Jakob Heitz.
On Nov 11, 2011, at 5:02 PM, "George, Wes" wrote:
>> From:
> From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Jakob Heitz
>
> The beacons will be unlikely to come like the slow constant drizzle of
> Seattle weather, but more like the quick cloudbursts of Miami weather.
> Just guessing.
>
> Such beacons will cause head-of-line block
> From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Matt Lepinski
> The -01
> version of the draft contains a mechanism (a field called pCount)
> which attempts to address this issue by having route servers create
> BGPSEC signatures without increasing the effective length
Those who have slots for presentation at the sidr meeting please send slides to
both chairs by Tuesday morning.
Despite similar requests in the past, we seem to frequently have presentations
that show up during the meeting. Please do not do that. Presentations must be
uploaded for everyone to
Guys, guys, guys.
Steve: making reference to a person's company concentrates too much on the
personal. Please be more careful.
Brian, Eric: If you meant "some individual contributors who I happen to know
and discuss this with", saying "my colleagues" was subject to
misinterpretation, especi
You may have missed noticing it...
I had provided the reference and the numbers in my eralier email --
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg03586.html
According to
http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net/instability/bgpupd.html
the current global BGP system produces
__ Average Prefixes per
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Danny McPherson wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> There's actually some research on this, I recall the number 'globally'
> as 1.2 avg packing... but internally, that may be different, of
> course.
>
> I'd be interested in a point
On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> There's actually some research on this, I recall the number 'globally'
> as 1.2 avg packing... but internally, that may be different, of
> course.
I'd be interested in a pointer to that Chris, if you could pass it along.
The only quanti
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jakob Heitz wrote:
> Don't forget, BGPSEC sends one prefix per update.
> Current traffic is 2 to 3 prefixes per update.
There's actually some research on this, I recall the number 'globally'
as 1.2 avg packing... but internally, that may be different, of
course.
12 matches
Mail list logo
