Many moons ago (IETF attendance was <100) there was an effort to solve this problem (Open Routing Working Group).
Stable refs are hard to find ... But the following gives a decent summary of an approach to such a solution. http://research.cens.ucla.edu/people/estrin/resources/journals/1991jan-Estr in-Streenstrup-InterDomain.pdf A long long way from BGP ... But maybe that is where you wan to go? dougm -- Doug Montgomery Mgr. Internet & Scalable Systems Research / ITL / NIST On 3/21/12 5:42 PM, "Shane Amante" <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Mar 21, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> 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? > >Yes. And, to answer Randy's question in that message ... I'm not >asserting that this is a _simple_ problem to be solved, but we should not >ignore the problem b/c it's "hard" ... otherwise, we wouldn't have the >Internet, as it exists today, nor a lot of other things. > >-shane >_______________________________________________ >sidr mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
