nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP to doom us all
From: batz <batsy () vapour net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:24:51 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Randy Bush wrote: :actually, the article is not all that far off reality as i see it. :the exception being that the ietf has NOT been diligently pursuing :sBGP but rather a lot of the effort is going into a 3/4 hack being :pushed by vendor laziness. The comments in the article are accurate, but the choice of facts is conspicuous. This, given all the other horrible what-if scenarios out there. Also, publicly riffing on specific technical issues doesn't address the underlying causes of the problems. I think the only problem with the comments is that they over-estimate the benefit of that level of security relative to the overhead it requires. -- batz
Current thread:
- Re: BGP to doom us all, (continued)
- Re: BGP to doom us all alex (Feb 28)
- Re: BGP to doom us all Rob Thomas (Feb 28)
- Re: BGP to doom us all Randy Bush (Feb 28)
- Re: BGP to doom us all Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 28)
- Re: BGP to doom us all batz (Feb 28)
- RE: BGP to doom us all Barry Raveendran Greene (Feb 28)
- Re: BGP to doom us all Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 28)
- Re: BGP to doom us all Bruce Robertson (Feb 28)
- Re: BGP to doom us all batz (Feb 28)
- Re: BGP to doom us all Randy Bush (Feb 28)
- Re: BGP to doom us all batz (Feb 28)
- Re: BGP to doom us all Randy Bush (Feb 28)
- Re: BGP to doom us all Bruce Pinsky (Feb 28)