nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter...
From: Tony Li <tli () jnx com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 20:18:56 -0800 (PST)
There is a $0.02 fix for the "routing security" problem -- use a logically separate network for exchanging routing and network monitoring information. That solution will be 100 years old next afternoon. Routing updates must _not_ be encapsulated in routable datagrams. That much, people who did GGP got right. So what's the $0.02 fix for eliminating the fate-sharing between routing and payload that GGP got wrong? Tony - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- RE: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter..., (continued)
- RE: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Chris A. Icide (Dec 20)
- RE: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... David Schwartz (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... William Allen Simpson (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Jim Van Baalen (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... alex (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Jim Van Baalen (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... alex (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Jim Van Baalen (Dec 20)
- RE: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Chris A. Icide (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Tony Li (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Tony Li (Dec 20)