> Proposal: one extra section on migration/deployability > There is text in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21 > > How will migration from BGP to BGPsec look like? What are the > benefits for the first adopters? Initially small groups of > contiguous ASes would be doing BGPsec. There would be possibly one > or more such groups in different geographic regions of the global > Internet. Only the routes originated within each group and > propagated within its borders would get the benefits of > cryptographic > AS path protection. As BGPsec adoption grows, each group grows in > size and eventually they join together to form even larger BGPsec > capable groups of contiguous ASes. The benefit for early adopters > starts with AS path security within the contiguous-AS regions > spanned > by their respective groups. Over time they would see those > contiguous-AS regions grow much larger. > >
i see no merit in reproducing text from another document. i could refer to it, but i prefer to add 7. Routing Policy As BGPsec signed paths can not traverse non-BGPsec topology, partial BGPsec deployment forms islands of assured paths. As islands grow to touch each other, they become larger islands. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
