On Nov 11, 2011, at 10:40 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-02
>
> To prevent exposure of the internals of BGP Confederations [RFC5065],
> a BGPsec speaker which is a Member-AS of a Confederation MUST NOT not
> sign updates sent to another Member-AS of the same Confederation.
Shouldn't supporting BGPSEC between Member-ASes of confederations be
a requirement -- not simply ignored and out of scope?
Particularly because of the manner in which they're used in many networks
today for regional and topological policy and administrative boundaries?
also, s/MUST NOT not/MUST NOT/ if it lives...
-danny
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
