nanog mailing list archives
Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it?
From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 17:20:50 -0500
On 5/10/2010 17:04, Randy Bush wrote:
Interestingly, the article misses interception and other non-outage potentials due to (sub) prefix hijacking.you seem to be entering the world of attacks. the AP article's point was fat fingers.
Interesting. I took it as a set up of why we NEED a Central Authority. *shrug* -- We'll see I guess, but probably not in time. -- Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Current thread:
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it?, (continued)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Nick Hilliard (May 11)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Danny McPherson (May 11)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Marshall Eubanks (May 11)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Patrick W. Gilmore (May 11)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Danny McPherson (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Larry Sheldon (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Danny McPherson (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? deleskie (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Randy Bush (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Larry Sheldon (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Danny McPherson (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Jorge Amodio (May 10)