my personal take, for the little it is worth is that, from the pov of
the sidr work, it is no different from the private ASs already in play.
randy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
Reposting with time of 2 weeks (1/4/2013).
Alexey, Sandy, and Chris:
We request that the SIDR WG review
draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-02.txt?
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation/)
Since it modifies RFC 1930, a BCP, it is likely to be a BCP.
Alexey, Sandy, and Chris:
We request that the SIDR WG review
draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-02.txt?
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation/)
Since it modifies RFC 1930, a BCP, it is likely to be a BCP.
Here's a few questions we'd like answered:
On 12/12/12 2:56 PM, "Alexey Melnikov" wrote:
>1) Is the problem described/solved by draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02
>actually a problem that the WG needs to address? (Answer: yes or no.
>Additional information is welcomed, but I don't want people to repeat
>the whole discussion.)
At present,
