nanog mailing list archives
RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution
From: "Eric Germann" <ekgermann () cctec com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:19:57 -0400
-----Original Message----- From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids () webmaster com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 6:38 PM To: ekgermann () cctec com; nanog () nanog org Subject: RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution Sensitivity: Confidential
<snip>
I think the whole idea of getting into an escalating technical war with Verisign is extremely bad. Your suggestion only makes sense if you expect Verisign to make changes to evade technical solutions. Each such change by Verisign will cause more breakage. Verisign will either provide a way to definitively, quickly, and easily tell that a domain is not registered or Verisign will badly break COM and NET. DS
Who said they're logical in their decision making process. While they experiment with .com/.net, countermeasures are called for. And they have badly broken .com/.net. This is just an evolution of the blackhole solution, doing it dynamically. Keeps us from having to find out they changed it/moved it/etc. And, if *.com goes away, so does the route :).
Current thread:
- Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution Eric Germann (Sep 18)
- RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution David Schwartz (Sep 18)
- RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution Eric Germann (Sep 18)
- RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution David Schwartz (Sep 18)
- RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution Eric Germann (Sep 18)
- Re: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution Stephen J. Wilcox (Sep 18)
- Re: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution Damian Gerow (Sep 18)
- RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution Eric Germann (Sep 18)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution Eric Germann (Sep 19)
- RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution David Schwartz (Sep 18)