nanog mailing list archives
Re: rpki vs. secure dns?
From: John Kristoff <jtk () cymru com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 10:31:11 -0500
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:46:06 -0400 Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
We need more flexible, distributed architecture behind - no matter - which interests will be lobbied as we have got already.as i agree that there is a problem, i *very* eagerly await your proposal
As Radia says in her book, we're probably stuck with BGP forever, but I frequently wonder if she is right in suggesting we could have done better by having a link state protocol instead. It trades some set of problems for another, but I don't find the dread this might instill reason enough to avoid putting some research effort into it. John
Current thread:
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns?, (continued)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Richard Barnes (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Paul Vixie (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Randy Bush (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Randy Bush (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Shane Amante (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? David Conrad (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Shane Amante (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Paul Vixie (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Randy Bush (May 30)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Dobbins, Roland (May 01)