On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Shane Amante <sh...@castlepoint.net> wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Eric Osterweil <eosterw...@verisign.com> >> wrote: >>> My input is that the current work that does not address the real route leak >>> threat, and it is therefore insufficient. >> >> and many, many times ... 'how would you do this, really, show me the >> math' has been asked. > > Answer: Evaluate policy.
'apply prefix lists' you mean? >> the closest so far is Brian's set of 3 id's >> which are being chattered about in IDR and some in SIDR as well. >> >> btw, Is 'the real route leak threat' different in some way than other >> (what other?) route-leak-threats? and is it the only thing you care >> about? (I think there are others, is this the only uncovered hole in >> the pasture? or are you worried about breaking your leg on something >> else as well?) >> >> -chris >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
