Hi Robert,
We write standards to serve those who implement, deploy, and manage the
technology. That means among other things, that our documents need to be
specific enough to enable interoperable implementations to be written. Simply
saying “the intention is to run BGP over TLS” (or some
Hi John,
I think I am getting to what you are saying ... or maybe not.
If I am reading it correctly you say that running BGP over TLS or DTLS is
not standardized hence we should be very careful in putting this in the new
documents.
Would you be of a different opinion if authors say instead that
> On Feb 6, 2024, at 2:48 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> I have been using BGP over TCP over TLS and BGP over TCP over DTLS for years
> testing Sproute's SDWAN solution. Works perfectly fine. In fact it performs
> much better then BGP over TCP over IPSec.
Cool. There are a great many things in
Hi John,
Trimming a bit the list of to/cc
I noticed you stated this:
".. as far as I’m aware, there is no IETF specification for BGP over TLS,
and I don’t expect that there will ever be a specification for BGP over
DTLS, given that BGP assumes a stream transport..."
So that got me a bit
Hi Robert,
> On Feb 6, 2024, at 1:49 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wirtgen-bgp-tls/
See my earlier reply to Linda.
> And for DTLS ... isn't this simply TCP over DTLS which works just fine ?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. It’s
Hi John,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wirtgen-bgp-tls/
And for DTLS ... isn't this simply TCP over DTLS which works just fine ?
Many thx,
R.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:38 PM John Scudder wrote:
> I haven’t done a full review of this document, but I did notice that Roman
> Danyliw
