> Worded like this, with the emphasis on the consequences, would seem to
> include such things as inserting spurious communities, as opposed to
> just modifying the AS-Path in an unacceptable way. Is that the
> intention?
>
> It is quite a shift from the focus of 10 days ago, which I read as
> solely securing the AS-Path, as opposed to anything else that might be
> in the advertisement.
this is a good and possibly important point i missed. first, to be as
clear as possible, here are the words as i now have them in my edit
buffer.
3.1 A BGPsec design MUST allow the receiver of an announcement to
detect that one or more ASes on the AS-Path is attempting to lure
the receiver into sending traffic to an incorrect next hop.
i could make it something like
3.1 A BGPsec design MUST allow the receiver of an announcement to
detect that one or more ASes have manipulated the AS-Path in an
attempt to lure the receiver into sending traffic to an incorrect
next hop.
whatcha think?
randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
