> -Original Message-
> From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Randy Bush
>
> so i reviewed the minutes from last month, looking for what i had to hack in
> the docs i edit.
> surely there was more. help!!!
>
[WEG] I have some notes implying I owe you te
> Send Randy text about *why* you should drop invalid
i actually understand this. it's the jgs paris aha. thanks!
if you have a roa
10.0.0.0/16-24 42
and you get announcements
10.0.0.0/16 42
10.0.666.0/24 666
if you do not drop the invalid 10.0.666.0/24, then longest match will
s
> (1) AS_PATH
>
> There was one agenda topic that we never directly addressed at the 30
> Apr meeting. That topic was the absence of the AS_PATH attribute from
> the bgpsec protocol. (The info normally contained in the AS_PATH is
> contained in the bgpsec attributes.)
well, actually, the discus
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : RPKI-Based Origin Validation Operation
Author(s) : Randy Bush
Filename:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : BGPsec Operational Considerations
Author(s) : Randy Bush
Filename: draf
Brian Dickson writes:
Hi Brian,
I believe I understand your system as functionally creating an
BGPSEC_Path_Signatures attribute with a algorithm/signature set that is
based off of adding random numbers to the signature field(s) instead of
adding cryptographically generated hashes. IE, we end up
Randy,
On May 23, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> (1) AS_PATH
>>
>> There was one agenda topic that we never directly addressed at the 30
>> Apr meeting. That topic was the absence of the AS_PATH attribute from
>> the bgpsec protocol. (The info normally contained in the AS_PATH is
>> con
>> there have been no comments on list to confed and aliasing. may we
>> call them done?
>
> Can you expound more what you mean by "aliasing" above? Do you mean
> local-as, etc.
yep
randy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailm
On May 23, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> there have been no comments on list to confed and aliasing. may we
>>> call them done?
>>
>> Can you expound more what you mean by "aliasing" above? Do you mean
>> local-as, etc.
>
> yep
That's strange. Why doesn't the following comment to t
>>> Can you expound more what you mean by "aliasing" above? Do you mean
>>> local-as, etc.
>> yep
> That's strange. Why doesn't the following comment to the list back in
> March of this year count as "no comments on list to ... aliasing"?
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg04
On May 23, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Can you expound more what you mean by "aliasing" above? Do you mean
local-as, etc.
>>> yep
>
>> That's strange. Why doesn't the following comment to the list back in
>> March of this year count as "no comments on list to ... aliasing"?
>>
> Can you expound more what you mean by "aliasing" above? Do you
> mean local-as, etc.
yep
>>> That's strange. Why doesn't the following comment to the list back
>>> in March of this year count as "no comments on list to ...
>>> aliasing"?
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sid
Rob Austein writes:
> For those who didn't get to see the end of the "RPKI Over BitTorrent"
> presentation in today's SIDR meeting, the full slide deck is available
> at
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-sidr-9.pdf
>
> and should be relatively self-explanatory.
I've been
On May 23, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Can you expound more what you mean by "aliasing" above? Do you
>> mean local-as, etc.
> yep
That's strange. Why doesn't the following comment to the list back
in March of this year count as "no comments on list to ...
a
14 matches
Mail list logo
