nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP Block 99/8
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:52:59 +0200
On 20-apr-2007, at 21:32, Marcus H. Sachs wrote:
If we had "clean" registries and signed/verifiable advertisements this wouldnot be an issue.
I wouldn't count on that. If such a mechanism would become available (which isn't completely unthinkable, see http://www.bgpexpert.com/ article.php?id=113 ), then obviously it will be a long time before everything that's in the routing tables has a corresponding certificate. It would be possible to give routes that check out a higher preference than ones that don't, but there's always that pesky longest match first rule that seems to cause so much trouble these days.
Current thread:
- IP Block 99/8 Shai Balasingham (Apr 20)
- Re: IP Block 99/8 bmanning (Apr 20)
- RE: IP Block 99/8 Marcus H. Sachs (Apr 20)
- Re: IP Block 99/8 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 20)
- RE: IP Block 99/8 Sean Donelan (Apr 21)
- Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic) J. Oquendo (Apr 23)
- Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic) Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 23)
- Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic) Kradorex Xeron (Apr 23)
- Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic) Patrick W. Gilmore (Apr 23)
- Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic) Bill Woodcock (Apr 23)
- Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic) J. Oquendo (Apr 23)
- Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic) Jerry Dixon (Apr 23)
- Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic) Sandy Murphy (Apr 23)
- Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic) Mike Tancsa (Apr 23)