I doubt that using such vague / loose terms as “business relationship
conformance” helps matters.
Actually 3.22 is a bit loose in the use of the word “intended”.
3.22 A BGPsec design SHOULD NOT presume to know the intent of the
originator of a NLRI, nor that of any AS on the AS Path,
Terribly sorry about that … ignore the post below.
An odd search / view through my mailbox made me think this was a recent
comment.
I was not trying to resurrect the discussion below.
Sorry about that.
dougm
—
Doug Montgomery, Mgr Internet Scalable Systems Research @ NIST/ITL/ANTD
On
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Smith, Donald
donald.sm...@centurylink.com wrote:
Wouldn't GTSM and tcp-ao help with DOS attacks?
I think this was focused only on the uplift to bgp that bgpsec is
supposed to be, so the assumption was/is that you'd already be doing
'bgp best practices'.
