On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Shane Amante <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Shane Amante <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 21, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Eric Osterweil <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> My input is that the current work that does not address the real route >>>>> leak threat, and it is therefore insufficient. >>>> >>>> and many, many times ... 'how would you do this, really, show me the >>>> math' has been asked. >>> >>> Answer: Evaluate policy. >> >> 'apply prefix lists' you mean? > > No. Evaluate _policy_. Policy is about whether an ASN /intended/ to > announce a path to another ASN _or_ not. More succinctly: one needs input to > verify output, (since you said "show me the math"). >
smarty... :) someone reminded me that I shouldn't be quite so flip 'show me the math' is really, 'how can I tell from 2 as-hops away that: 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> me is a leak?' Randy posted on nanog (to you/shane, I think) a message with content like: "to do this rigorously, i would need to form the transitive closure of the business policies of every inter-provider link on the internet." in this: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2012-February/045941.html> message. This is what you mean as well, yes? -chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
