On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
The counter tends to be viewed as quite amateurish.
personally, i would be professionally embarrassed to have my name on
such wild assed cabbage throwing as that document.
I would point out to all folks on this list, and
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote:
Aren't we just adding to the total attack surface available against the
routing system by allowing users to go into a web page and change what's
advertised into the ROA system?
could be, but so are ssl cert things from thawte, or
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote:
So the routing system is being secured by information that is at least
several minutes behind actual topology changes. What impact will this
have on the overall number of updates, speed of reachability, etc. --and
what's the
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote:
Of course, SIDR has never cared about what happens ten years from now,
since that's beyond the time horizon for the actual goals at hand.
this isn't a particularly useful line of commentary, could we stick
with the problem we're
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
If you only have one cache, and this fails, and you need to restore
the
whole repository(ies): then yes. You have a problem.
But if you have two cache servers, perhaps you would not even notice
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
limits on its reaction time. Certainly from my perspective, more suited
to pre-publishing preventative data, then creating reactionary data.
And the state of the art in DDoS mitigation doesn't allow this, period.
it sure
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Eric Osterweil eosterw...@verisign.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
if an AS is to run its own SIA (which I believe is envisioned to be
far and away be the common case)
quite the opposite. the vast majority of ASs will likely use
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels t...@ripe.net wrote:
Good. On that note I think it's worthwhile thinking about different
complementary ways to deal with this. I.e. make the server side more
scalable as well as considering flooding protocols and other ways to share
data between
1 quick note on the numbers below (I've not read the paper, just the commentary)
also, thanks to eric for making some work available, and taking a stab
at the numbers/sizing/speeding.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Erick
Very interesting
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Dan York dan-i...@danyork.org wrote:
Agreed, sadly... but the good news is that this whole thing did get more
people thinking about
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
take that up with the secretariat? I'm not sure how 'sidr chairs have
a conflict with grow chairs, since they are the same person' isn't a
clear signal to: do not schedule these at the sametime.
Telling, indeed..
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
I'm not convinced that is the right approach, I don't think it needs to be IN
BGP. Hence the original route leak draft, which we just updated, mind you:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
Not on my last read, e.g.:
(These behaviors are not precluded by the specification for BGP,
and might be the result of a local policy that is not publicly disclosed.
As a result, they are not considered attacks. See
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Shane Amante sh...@castlepoint.net wrote:
Chris,
On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
there isn't data in bgp today data which tells you 'this path is a
leak'. Even at the immediately-leaked-to peer there isn't data
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 1:37 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
where to send comments/questions?
Fine question, apparently out of the scope of _S_I_D_R. Perhaps GROW, we
should ask the chairs :-)
frankly I'm happy to add
(aside: ugh, your mail client doesn't wrap lines properly... or gmail
isn't re-wrapping properly)
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
The draft you reference up-thread isn't actually helpful, it doesn't
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
frankly I'm happy to add comments on the sidr list, or grow list or
you directly... my question perhaps was mis-phrased, I'll try again:
Where would you like me
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
1) show/agree that this is a problem (route leaks)
Do you believe this is a problem? When describing events such as this as
of late, what did you call it?
sure
(also, your mail client is not wrapping properly)
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Shane Amante sh...@castlepoint.net wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Shane Amante sh...@castlepoint.net wrote:
Chris,
On Nov
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Jakob Heitz jakob.he...@ericsson.com wrote:
Wasn't there a proposal along the lines of:
Create an attribute that says:
I authorize you to announce this route to your provider
I think it was some form of 'bit for transit' and 'bit for customer'
... but sure.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I'm not presupposing, I'm saying that today you CAN do what you want
with IRR data, some folks do this with varying degrees of
success/failure. you could improve
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Eric Osterweil eosterw...@verisign.com wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
(also, your mail client is not wrapping properly)
How's my client treatin' ya? :-P
just as broke, bug lodged (I hope) for a fix.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:15
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Eric Osterweil eosterw...@verisign.com wrote:
Right, but did anyone who was involved in remediating that Moratel leak say,
``we're all set, I can see the path of the leak, it's miller time!''? I'm
pretty
sure verifying the leak is not the same as remediating
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Eric Osterweil eosterw...@verisign.com wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Eric Osterweil eosterw...@verisign.com
wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
just as broke, bug
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Shane Amante sh...@castlepoint.net wrote:
I can't, nor do I believe can anyone else. I refer you to the following:
i don't know what your first sentence means.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-03#section-5
---snip---
o Route leaks
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
pedantry
'Route leaks are viewed as a routing security problem...
route leaks, as we anecdotally know them, are an operational problem.
sure, I was actually mostly quoting the draft, probably that comment
belongs to the
,
Byron
On 13/10/2012, at 12:53 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Helo,
Since we've been through this for a while (originally) and this has
been quiet for ~1 month... let's call this done and move to the next
step.
1) there was lots of discussion on the topic at hand
2
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Andy Newton a...@arin.net wrote:
On 10/12/12 10:53 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
I think if, in the end, the wg decides to abandon the work that's also
fine, but we should have a more structured chat about the topic, that
happens around
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Shane Amante sh...@castlepoint.net wrote:
Nice try; however, you didn't address the crux of the matter, which are these
statements in the threats document:
ugh, i keep trying to be polite and point out that:
1) no one said you can't discuss this
2) no one
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Shane Amante sh...@castlepoint.net wrote:
Second, there is this sentence: BGP itself ***does not include
semantics*** that
preclude what many perceive as route leaks. ... That statement reads to me
as
stating that _because_ BGP does include semantics to
The threats document:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-03
was updated September 14, 2012, the idea being it captured the
comments made on -02, a primary author of comments was Danny (copied),
had the commentors gotten time to review whether or not the comments
met
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:55 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
a lot of fun, but the semantics behind the PKIX certificates are actually
there for good reason. While I'm sure you can make the bits syntactically
fit, it is equally important that there is an actual meeting of the minds
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Byron Ellacott b...@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 08/11/2012, at 3:04 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Byron Ellacott b...@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Chris,
When did the WG reach consensus on adopting
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Byron Ellacott b...@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 08/11/2012, at 4:00 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
ok, i suppose my point here is that there's a bunch of discussion,
there's a draft that got chattered about quite a bit. having the wg
note I do want to see rpki/sidr deployment move forward, but...
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Dan York dan-i...@danyork.org wrote:
Here, in one easy-to-read article, is a great example of why we need RPKI
and/or other secure routing technologies that verify the origins of route
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Eric Osterweil eosterw...@verisign.com wrote:
On Oct 11, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Chris,
I think that you and Sandy mentioned that
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats and draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats should
be done before
thanks author.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:10 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : Responsible
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Matthew Lepinski wrote:
I would like to confirm on the list that the discussions at the last interim
reflect the consensus of the working group.
In this message, I list for each open issue, my
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't believe it is at all appropriate to WGLC a document prior to
substantive review and maturity.
it's on it's 5th revision, with substantive discussion along the way...
I think your objection was noted... no need to belabour the point (or
become uncivil)
thanks for your opinion.
-chris
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
So, does it not make sense that the RPKI, meaning its design, architecture,
procedures, etc., should actually enforce exclulsivity?
see tim's note.
___
sidr mailing
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Eric Osterweil
eosterw...@verisign.com wrote:
On Aug 28, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:
Eric,
Perhaps what you are looking for is some text in an operations doc,
suggesting what
an RP can expect, depending on how it elects to interact with the
Hello WG folk,
This draft has undergone 9 revisions since the last WGLC, which seemed
to end with requests for changes by the authors.
Can we now have a final-final-please-let's-progress WGLC for this
draft now? Let's end the call: 08/31/2012 (Aug 31 2012).
Htmlized version available at:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Byron Ellacott b...@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 11/08/2012, at 12:00 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Byron Ellacott b...@apnic.net wrote:
(But this is sort of my point, the RPKI system's verification of right of
use breaks
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Byron Ellacott b...@apnic.net wrote:
(But this is sort of my point, the RPKI system's verification of right of use
breaks down if you start certifying multiple people as having a simultaneous
right to use resources :-)
but that model has to exist as you have
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Terry Manderson te...@terrym.net wrote:
I'm sorry Chris, I think this concern about having to 'avoid' LEA actions is
FUD worthy. Regardless if it occurs at the peak of the hierarchy or any level
underneath.
lots of words elided
hrm, so... LEA folk figuring
an interesting outgrowth of the grandparenting could be the ability to
'avoid' LEA actions at middle tiers of the address allocation
heirarchy... that's something to consider, i'd say.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
tim,
i see where some confusion might come
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Ed Kern ejk...@gmail.com wrote:
Ill be happy to host the webex for the meeting to decide if future
confirmations
on the list are necessary.
I'm sorry, we certainly need to confirm on list the need for a webex,
and of course for a meeting to talk about the
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:19 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
However, in order to gain any benefit from the location, we probably need to
publicize the interim on the NANOG list, though the window for doing it
before travel plans are made is probably closing/closed.
Wasn't
An astute reader notes that the original message:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg04563.html
(additionally, until a moment ago the wiki doc for the meeting had
this text copied/pasted into it...)
Had the original timing data (full-day), the space and other
constraints
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:13 PM, John G. Scudder j...@juniper.net wrote:
Wes,
On May 23, 2012, at 9:22 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Bittorrent works well for sharing the load, but either requires a lot of
bittorrent start files (whatever they're called), which then becomes
hard to syncronize; or
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
* aspath not present - implications?
- scudder's notes at previous meeting
perhaps not all the bugs worked out/considerations made
(not just tools, re-figuring the aspath on entrance/exit,
are there
, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
The argument that we can't do the crypto without HW
i didn't see anyone say that though.
___
sidr mailing list
sidr
like to help? :)
^^^ - probably others as well, but he's been a voice so far, as has mr turner.
-chris
Ross
On 14/05/2012, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
We can't do the crypto without
oh, for reasons I can't explain we already did this, yay! (mar 26 or so)
even better I think we said it concluded successfully... and it
someone (me) should fix the document location/train in the tools
interface.
so, hopefully people didn't read too much of this version already :)
-chris
On
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
would be interestd to hear from other ops if they believe they could get
the folk managing spares to pre-key in a useful way.
no way that'll happen 'reliably'. though I contend you have time
between 'card fail' and 'router back
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
though I contend you have time between 'card fail' and 'router back to
normal' to ship a key in the ether/ssh to the device too.
by the time the replacement re is sufficiently on net to create and send
a public key to the noc
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been proposed that a roadmap timeframe of 5-7 years is acceptable, in
order that vendors provide hardware-based implementations. No justification
for this has been offered, beyond well, it is common
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
The argument that we can't do the crypto without HW
i didn't see anyone say that though.
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
I'm probably confused, or the example has been simplified.. but
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Scenario 2:
perform basic pseudo-signature once, repeat for routing table of 400,000 in
size.
pseudo-signature operation:
use N distinct
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
And given that current generation hardware has CPUs at least an order of
magnitude slower, or possibly two orders of magnitude, suggests that
software-based bgpsec can never work.
for clarity, I think a
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
1) late start/technology fail with the webex (probably webex
operations failures more than anything - my fault)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_check
6) microphone discipline for in-room vs external folks, often the
and hopefully we'll get the webex started, I apparently don't have the
'event host email address' :(
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Murphy, Sandra sandra.mur...@sparta.comwrote:
The link below looks specific to the first invitee (me), so the link on
the wiki page might serve for a general
...@jabber.ietf.org
-chris
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
and hopefully we'll get the webex started, I apparently don't have the
'event host email address' :(
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Murphy, Sandra
sandra.mur...@sparta.comwrote:
The link
Folks that are arriving on-site:
1) please bring a usb-headset (or whatever flavor you think works
for you, remember this is supposed to be fully virtual a meeting)
2) webex details are on the WIKI [0]
3) arrival at ~-08:45am should be good, I ought to be on-site about
then as well
4) we
Howdy sidr folk, especially those attending in person:
1) no more space is available, all people post 04/27/2012 16:13 EDT
are going to have to be actually virtual (see webex details on wiki)
2) if you are on the agenda to present please send slides NOW... or
very soon to NOW.
3) see you all there
Helo WG peoples,
The following update posted today. Sean and Tom have come to agreement
on their differences, I believe this closes the last open items on
this document.
Let's start a WGLC for this, ending: 4/27/2012 or 27/4/2012
Thanks!
-Chris
co-chair
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 03:53:29PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
Functionally, confed segments are stripped prior to the global AS being
added to the path. ?The box performing this function is the one that needs
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net wrote:
May be is somewhere and I could not find it, but, what is the timezone?
wait, not everyone is in Hawaii time? :)
EDT is the TZ, I should have added that, it IS on the wiki page now.
thanks!
-chris
Thanks!
.as
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Paul Jakma p...@jakma.org wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Jakob Heitz wrote:
I agree with Robert. Today, there are many tools that interact with BGP
messages. If the AS_PATH disappears, they will all break.
Indeed. If mandatory, well-known attributes are
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Apr 10, 2012, at 8:56 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
yes, my goal was to have updated the wiki today at the office, work
intruded... tomorrow I'll do that with some more content for each
item, and hopefully better
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Apr 11, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
From there, we can discuss the issue of, for example, HOW TO onboard and
purge signing and validating certificates to routers from the RPKI -- [I
suspect
(-home-email ... never should have started that:( )
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Chris Morrow morr...@ops-netman.net wrote:
On 04/11/2012 01:57 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
I suppose, to me this looks like any other configuration thing you
do today on routers... beating the vendor over
(if the ads want off this train, speak up)
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
My understanding is, that at least for the origination aspect, the
freshness argument is that the keys get rolled periodically.
they can get rolled periodically, sure.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:28:32PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Jakob Heitz jakob.he...@ericsson.com
wrote:
Confeds are out of scope.
how are confeds out of scope?
if you want path
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net wrote:
Chris,
For the agenda item: Deployment Discussion - Discuss the need, and
publication location/method, for documentation that details rollout of SIDR
technologies in an operational network. Are we going to
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net wrote:
Anyhow my doubt has been answered and I stay by my opinion that not sending
AS_PATH and AS4_PATH is a terrible idea.
So... we can send the data along, but in the case of BGPSEC speakers
the data isn't used (it's replicated
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net wrote:
So... we can send the data along, but in the case of BGPSEC speakers
the data isn't used (it's replicated in the BGPSEC_SIGNED_PATH).
So far I have always heard that BGPSEC is just providing the hint to the
operator and
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net wrote:
In my view we should do all BGP processing based on legacy attributes and
BGPSEC should be a hint to the local operator on how to treat the update.
i think that's the point of the current spec though... inbound updates
(on
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net wrote:
All BGP monitoring tools need to be upgraded to now understand BGPSEC
attribute too. And surprise .. here BMP will not convert it like it will
to
legacy speakers.
sure, they'd have to do that anyway, or they just are
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Jakob Heitz jakob.he...@ericsson.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:53 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net
wrote:
Anyhow my doubt has been answered and I stay by my opinion that not
sending
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
Chris,
Can you expand on these, I'm not sure I know what to read or propose in order
to prepare..
yes, my goal was to have updated the wiki today at the office, work
intruded... tomorrow I'll do that with some more content
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net wrote:
Hi,
And intradomain BGP speakers do not use bgpsec (ebgp sessions only).
I do not understand. How a BGP Update will transit via an AS where each
router is a real BGP speaker and where as some proposed BGP mandatory
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
i don't think the rsync scale issues surprise anyone that was paying
attention. If we're already considering new architectures, substrates, et
al., here perhaps we shouldn't be so quick on the trigger for Standards Track
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote:
Jakob,
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 03:51:10AM -0400, Jakob Heitz wrote:
Could we not put a freshness indication into the BGP update?
Then everyone that receives the new update would know to invalidate the less
fresh paths.
-secretary
We needed to send the announcement for the first date, in order to hit
it, depending on attendence numbers we would be either in Reston for
~20 people or Arlington for 'more' (30).
If the number of remote possibles is higher than in-person we should
take the opportunity to run a fully
Alright, I'll tackle that tomorrow morning.
-chris
(cochair)
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi
kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov wrote:
Sandy,
Chris,
The WGLC on this doc ended 09/22/2011.
We (the authors) submitted a substantially revised version on October 31,
2011,
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the use cases are likely to be informed by protocol design, so even
s/informed by protocol design/altered if the protocol design changes/
I'm not sure if the protocol design's going to change the
details for the webex:
Topic: IETF83 SIDR wg meeting
Date and Time:
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:00 am,Europe Summer Time
(Paris, GMT+02:00)
Event number: 646 631 463
Event password: wgmeeting
Event address for attendees:
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/onstage/g.php?d=646631463t=a
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Matt Lepinski mlepin...@bbn.com wrote:
Terry,
On 3/27/2012 4:22 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
I feel like the Monday meeting was a bit of a lost opportunity. I
appreciate
see previous gzip compression message :( I think we tried to stuff
8hrs of content into
Sean,
This document seems settled, should we WGLC this in the near future?
-chris
cochair
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:21 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain
howdy WG folk:
yes, some emails are coming out (now), perhaps I'll
double-count/mis-count on a document, please speak up if you think
that is the case :)
The purpose here is to get status updated on docs and move things
along if they are in the right place for said movement.
thanks!
-chris
Matt/Sean,
This document hasn't changed in a while, Wes (copied) had some
comments which I believe were addressed in the October/2011 update? Is
this document ready to move forward? Wes, did you review the changes
sent?
-Chris
cochair
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:02 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sean/Tom,
Tom had some comments on the previous (I believe) version of this
draft, are they addressed to your satisfaction Tom?
Sean, if Tom's ok with the changes, should we move this along?
-Chris
cochair
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:20 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft
Hello authors,
What is your intent with this document? moving along the process?
delaying on other references? holiday-for-document in sweden?
Inquiring minds would like to be informed! :)
Thanks!
-Chris
cochair
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New
Reviving a zombie thread...
So,
Where does this set of comments end us? Are the updates put in between
11/11 and 03/12 taking care of the discussion? or are there still
things to wrangle?
I think, given the length and breadth of discussion here we'd all do
to re-read and re-WGLC this doc once
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Is this document prepared/ready/willing for WGLC in the near future?
imiho, no
I believe there were some outstanding document comments still to be
handled by your edit-buffer?
it is matt's edit buffer which gives me pause
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Jakob Heitz jakob.he...@ericsson.com wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/83/agenda/sidr-drafts.pdf
link on agenda page is broken
maybe someone reported this to the HD already, but ... working now! :)
(or worked for me at least)
-chris
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Paul Jakma p...@jakma.org wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Jakob Heitz wrote:
The issue is SIDR can not aggregate multiple paths.
Should SIDR work on path aggregation?
If we ever want to make routing state scale sub-linearly (i.e. make IDR
compact) in the
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net wrote:
Are we going to freeze any AS_PATH modifications by operator's policy too ?
I mentioned replace-as which all major vendors support. There can be more
knobs like this coming in the future.
replace as i think is dealt with
101 - 200 of 330 matches
Mail list logo
