Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-10

Yes, I agree. I just sent a message to the authors of the protocol spec (cc’d the WG) along the same lines. On 12/9/16, 7:57 PM, "Randy Bush" > wrote: first the protocol spec needs to make clear if the real AS can proxy sign for a connected private AS. then

[sidr] Confederations and Private ASNs (WAS: AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-18)

[Changed the Subject to specifically discuss Confederation support, and hopefully get some attention from the WG.] Sriram: Hi! I think the only item left is the Confederations one…and we might be speaking past each other. Yes, I agree that the collusion problem is one that (as you mentioned

Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-10

> Yes, there should be something about private ASNs in the protocol spec. > > It would be nice to also see some operational guidance in this document. > > Alvaro. > > otoh, private AS numbers are used in non-confed topologies, e.g. the bgp > stub customer who uses a private AS. they should not

Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-10

Hi! Yes, there should be something about private ASNs in the protocol spec. It would be nice to also see some operational guidance in this document. Alvaro. On 12/7/16, 7:07 PM, "Randy Bush" > wrote: otoh, private AS numbers are used in non-confed