On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Jakob Heitz <jakob.he...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Wasn't there a proposal along the lines of: > > Create an attribute that says: > "I authorize you to announce this route to your provider"
I think it was some form of 'bit for transit' and 'bit for customer' ... but sure. > The originator and all transited ASes must sign it. > Any AS can remove it. > If you receive an update without it (but with a bgpsec) > from a customer or peer, then human intervention > is required before accepting it. > This way, human intervention occurs before the problem, not after. I think the proposal was to mark the route as 'bad' and then decide to do somethign with it (or not... say lower-local-pref/med/etc or discard/reject/drop - let the local operator decide what to do with that class of problem) > What happened to that proposal? awaiting updates/edits/etc.. and I think moved from sidr to idr, notionally at least. > Was it Brian Dickson? > think so, yes. > -- > Jakob Heitz. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
