On Nov 14, 2012, at 6:14 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > I certainly support the premise presented int his draft and that this is a > significant issue.
In addition to Jared, Shane, Eric and I, other folks said route leaks are a problem as well on SIDR. I'll provide full fragment for context below, and they can chime in if they so choose... =============================================== Begin forwarded message: > From: Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [sidr] The need for SIDR - Google limited outage today due to > bogus route announcement > Date: November 7, 2012 3:56:33 PM EST > To: Danny McPherson <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected] list" <[email protected]> > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Danny McPherson <[email protected]> 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, but I'm not the grow-wg ... right? aim that question over -> > <mailto: [email protected]> there. =============================================== Begin forwarded message: > From: Randy Bush <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [sidr] The need for SIDR - Google limited outage today due to > bogus route announcement > Date: November 7, 2012 10:22:16 PM EST > To: Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> > Cc: sidr wg list <[email protected]> > > <pedantry> > >> "'Route leaks" are viewed as a routing security problem..." > > route leaks, as we anecdotally know them, are an operational problem. > imiho, they are not particularly a security problem. but that does not > mean i think the ietf routing community should not be working on a > solution, quite the opposite. > > randy =============================================== _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
