On Aug 10, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: > My recollection of Randy's presentation was not what you suggest.
Again, I don't recall putting any words in Randy's mouth, if I did, it was unintentional. However... > I think he said that having each AS along a path associated a lifetime with > the sig it applied to an update was a bad idea. He also said that a beacon > rate of about 24 hours, at the origin AS, seemed potentially useful, and > would not result in excessive routing churn. Periodic updates of the entire routing table *with much larger and more updates* seems undesirable at best to me, particularly to ""reduce the vulnerability window for replay attacks" to "days". I suggest we stick with the current triggered updates operation or take this to IDR, it's a fundamental change from where we are today, and one's perspective of "excessive routing churn" seems to be relative. -danny _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
