Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?

[sandy () tislabs com]

> the scheme that josh karlin has been advocating in pretty good bgp
> involved only supressing a doubtful announcement when you have a
> better, more trusted announcement.

Not a doubtful announcement, a novel announcement.  Not a better
announcement, a more usual announcement.  The trust part, like beauty,
is in the eye of the beholder.

Don't get me wrong - I think basing decision on some "trusted"
summary of historical behavior is going to be important, unless and
until we get some approach that gives a more deterministic answer.
But I do believe that we need to consider carefully how this will
play with dynamic, particularly unplanned, changes in who is announcing what.

If there turn out to be cases where dynamic, particularly unplanned,
changes get rejected by this technique in favor of stale data,
then there should be consideration given to how to amend the scheme
to prevent that or suggest operational practices to get around it.

--Sandy