In message <4af48d1c.4040...@merit.edu>
Larry Blunk writes:
>
> It's my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong)
> that by issuing a CA-Cert a provider is
> not only giving the customer authority to register their own
> ROA's, but to also issue ROA's or CA-Cert's for
> customers of the
In message <20090920162216.gb11...@mit.edu>
"Jeffrey I. Schiller" writes:
>
> In my opinion, it is a good idea to work on not changing the balance
> of power. That may require that the allocation agencies *not* be part
> of the key hierarchy.
>
> -Jeff
Hi Jeff,
Nice t
In message
Sandra Murphy writes:
>
> Curtis was suggesting if address space is not as cheap as domain names,
> then this scheme would not be used.
Truly competitive and/or reasonably priced would be a more accurate
translation of "like domain names".
> I picked up on the point that the RPKI
In message
Stephen Kent writes:
>
> At 12:22 AM -0400 9/15/09, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> >In message <6c269e52-839e-46f4-9db1-449cb2376...@isoc.org>
> >John Schnizlein writes:
> >>
> >> David,
> >>
> >> What yo
In message <6c269e52-839e-46f4-9db1-449cb2376...@isoc.org>
John Schnizlein writes:
>
> David,
>
> What you may be looking for is Steve Kent's Trust Anchor Management
> presentation (and the errata slide 13) - the last items in the SIDR
> materials from IETF 75.
>
> https://datatracker.ie
In message <48da8f07-cc0a-4cfa-9153-056585483...@virtualized.org>
David Conrad writes:
[.. snip, sorry ..]
>
> Is this scenario accurate?
I haven't a clue. :-) I'm out of the layer 8 loop.
My understanding is that an entity with a very large address space
would be entitled to run their own r
In message <6d0984a9-12a9-4b16-8eac-6ea391176...@virtualized.org>
David Conrad writes:
[ trimmed ]
>
> Could someone enlighten me why enterprises, ISPs, or governments
> who are NOT the roots of this system won't recoil in horror at even
> the idea that their parents, grandparents, great-gra
In message <7fa8c7b6-ace4-4604-98ec-2585b937b...@apnic.net>
Geoff Huston writes:
>
>
> The way I've seen this phrased is that ASes X, Y and Z announce an
> aggregatable set of prefixes to AS A, and AS A wants to to announce a
> single covering aggregate.
>
> Geoff
That is certainly the
In message
Terry Manderson writes:
>
> Hi Curtis,
>
> Thanks for reading and providing feedback on the document.
>
>
> On 5/07/09 7:27 AM, "Curtis Villamizar" wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > There seem to be a few classes of requ
In message
Terry Manderson writes:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> In IETF 74 a call was made to the SIDR-WG to define the organisational use
> cases that would precipitate use of the RPKI certificates and objects in a
> routing sense.
>
> Shortly after, a small group of interested individuals began pr
In message
Danny McPherson writes:
>
>
> On May 27, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> >
> > This happens a lot. I have a large set of data over the past years
> > that is collected here:
> >
> > http://puck.nether.net/bgp/leakinfo.cgi
> >
> > There is constant noise visible. The
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sandra Murphy writes:
>
> [---8<---snip---]
>
> > The
> > idea is can we get a similar security with the current infrastructure,
> > by doing minor improvements. There is a certain cost involved with the
> > SIDR infrastructure.
>
> No, we cannot get similar se
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Joe Abley writes:
>
>
> On 4-Mar-2008, at 10:14, Vishwas Manral wrote:
>
> > I was talking about the RIPE whois and other related tools that RIPE
> > provides, when I looked at the link given below:
> > http://www.ripe.net/news/study-youtube-hijacking.html
> >
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
>
> On 21-mrt-2007, at 14:45, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>
> >> Does this address the solution where multihomer M uses ISPs A and B,
> >> and M's prefix is injected into BGP by both A and B and NOT
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Larry Blunk writes:
>
>
> The ROA presentation mentioned the option of using
> "RPSL" for expressing prefix ranges. I just wanted
> to make it clear that my suggestion was to borrow the
> "RPSL Range Operator" expression syntax for prefix ranges.
> This is
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
>
> I was looking through draft-ietf-sidr-arch-00.txt and I noticed this:
>
> 5.2.2. Multi-homing
>
> If a multi-homed subscriber wants multiple ASes to originate
> routes for prefixes that it holds, then it must explicitly
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Larry J. Blunk" writes:
Curtis, sounds like an application for the RPSL range operators --
Agreed.
Curtis
___
Sidr mailing list
Sidr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Russ White writes:
>
> Geoff Huston wrote:
> > I'm against this exact match requirement - I think its a case of
> > semantic overload in mixing basic authorities (permission to originate)
> > with routing policy (explicit nomination of what prefixes to route).
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
