nanog mailing list archives
Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8...
From: Harsha Narayan <hnarayan () cs ucsd edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:04:16 -0800 (PST)
Hi, It would require a PKI and also require every router to support it. Harsha. On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Vadim Antonov wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Harsha Narayan wrote:Key databases: Using cryptography to authenticate routing updates gets messy very soon. Then, there will again be the same problem of the Public Key Infrastucture not getting updated or something like that.Hard to do it right, yes, but not impossible. (Actually I did strong crypto for a living last few years, so I think I have somewhat informed opinion on the subject :) --vadim
Current thread:
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8..., (continued)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... Michael . Dillon (Dec 10)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... Michael . Dillon (Dec 10)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... bmanning (Dec 10)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... Randy Bush (Dec 10)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... Vadim Antonov (Dec 10)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... Stephen J. Wilcox (Dec 10)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... Vadim Antonov (Dec 10)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... Joel Baker (Dec 10)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... Harsha Narayan (Dec 10)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... Vadim Antonov (Dec 10)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... Harsha Narayan (Dec 10)
- Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8... Vadim Antonov (Dec 10)