I just saw this announcement. Looks interesting.
--Sandy, speaking as regular ol' member
From: i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org [i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf
of internet-dra...@ietf.org [internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25,
From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com]
[CLM]
In the RPKIcache example, 'consumer' is 'routers in your network'.
'Close' is 'close enough that bootstrapping isn't a problem', balanced
with 'gosh, maybe I don't want to put one on top of each router! plus
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com]
[CLM]
In the RPKIcache example, 'consumer' is 'routers in your network'.
'Close' is 'close enough that bootstrapping isn't a problem',
[WEG] that's part of my issue - the only way that you get close
enough that bootstrapping isn't a problem is when the cache and
router are directly
there's some baseline that's acceptable, you intimate that IGP comes
up before EGP below. that makes some sense, and thus maybe the target
is
how about
To relieve routers of the load of performing certificate validation,
cryptographic operations, etc., the RPKI-Router protocol, [RFC6810],
does not provide object-based security to the router. I.e. the
router may not validate the data cryptographically from a well-known
