nanog mailing list archives
Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it?
From: Danny McPherson <danny () tcb net>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:42:38 -0600
On May 10, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Anton Kapela wrote:
Interestingly, the article misses interception and other non-outage potentials due to (sub) prefix hijacking.
I think it captures it in such a way that my grandmother might be more likely to grok it. Regardless, those are just more symptoms of the same underlying problem, no? And the "i root" incident was plausibly a hybrid of error and intercept, so there's a nice hefty gray area there as well. I suspect no one missed that.. -danny
Current thread:
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it?, (continued)
- 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? Anton Kapela (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? Larry Sheldon (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Vincent J.. Bono (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Jorge Amodio (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? deleskie (May 10)