Re: soBGP deployment

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>]

On 23-mei-2005, at 17:39, Randy Bush wrote:

>   o with sbgp, the assertion of the validity of asn A announcing
>     prefix P to asn B is congruent with the bgp signaling itself,
>     A merely signs the assertion in the bgp announcement.

>   o with sobgp, the assertion is in an external database with
>     issues such as

This is nonsense. Did you even read the soBGP drafts?

In S-BGP the certificates are carried in path attributes, in soBGP in  
a new BGP message. Other than that, they do not differ in this regard.

And unless the implementations are stupid, it should be simple enough  
to use a web of trust rather than a fixed trust hierarchy, so the RRs  
don't (necessarily) come into play.

> its the old simplicity vs complexity game yet again

Do I hear you say that S-BGP is less complex than soBGP??