Randy Bush wrote (on Fri 08-Jul-2011 at 19:24 +0100): .... > > This is what "6.6 Proxy Signing" in > > draft-sriram-bgpsec-design-choices suggests, is it > > not ? Or does that blow the trust model to hell, > > also ?
> it does indeed. that is why 6.6 was rejected. Ah. There I was, reading a draft of 5-Jul-2011 and thinking I was up to date :-( OK. If the RS ASN is in the path, then nobody needs to depend on the integrity of the RS (however trustworthy one may expect them to be). I look forward to the ASN count mechanism appearing in the draft(s), and support for Route Servers making its way into the Requirements. Chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
