Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?

[Michael.Dillon () btradianz com]

> > Perhaps people should stop trying to have these
> > operational discussions in the IETF and take the
> > discussions to NANOG where network operators gather.
>
> We have tried, of course; see, for example, NANOG 28 (Salt Lake City).
> There was no more consensus at NANOG than in the IETF...

One attempt almost 3 years ago, doesn't sound very
serious to me. And if the discussion is only concerned
with seeking consensus on implementing a new flavor 
of BGP protocol then it isn't much of a discussion.

In fact, there was a consensus at Salt Lake City that
the issues of routing security could be adequately dealt
with by existing tools and protocols. Not all problems
require new protocols to solve them.

--Michael Dillon