Trying again without the signature block. Sorry about that, hit send too soon. *blush* > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Christopher Morrow > > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:23 AM > > To: Paul Jakma > > Cc: i...@ietf.org List; sidr@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [sidr] [Idr] No BGPSEC intradomain ? > > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Paul Jakma <p...@jakma.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Jakob Heitz wrote: > > > > > >> I agree with Robert. Today, there are many tools that interact with BGP > > >> messages. If the AS_PATH disappears, they will all break. > > > > > > > > > Indeed. If mandatory, well-known attributes are removed, then the BGP > > > protocol version number needs to be bumped. > > > > > > There's near-0-cost in doing that for those interested in implementing the > > > new functionality, and it avoids a world of hurt for all the various tools > > > (sometimes in-house/home-grown) out there that believe they know what > > > they're getting when the version says 4. > > > > "if you don't ask for the 'bgpsec capability' then ... you get what > > you get today." > > > > also > > > > "if you ask for the 'bgpsec capabiltiy' then ... you get (and can > > presumably handle) the changes" > > > > so, everything you do today, ought to just keep right on working, or > > that's the plan. > > [WEG] Why *are* we so resistant to incrementing the BGP version? I think that > there's some merit to the idea that this suite of things represents a > significant enough change to BGP that a change in version number might be a > cleaner way to do the capability negotiation, perhaps even incorporating other > secondary capabilities so that there isn't so much individual capability > negotiation for all of the things that we've tacked onto BGP4 over the years. > In other words, if you support BGPv5, you support the a list of capabilities > (eg 4-byte ASN, GR, route refresh, etc), and they no longer have to be > negotiated separately. Even if we move directly from version 4 to 6 as it > seems we are wont to do, I think this bears some consideration (by IDR, of > course) ;-) > > Wes George > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to > copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for > the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not > the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the > contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail > and any printout. > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
