Hello Ruediger, Many thx for your reply.
don't interfere with whatever chaos (you think) the operator is working with.
By chaos I meant complete autonomous selection of what paths are preferred to be chosen as best on an AS by AS basis. In the case of mixed SIGNED and UNSIGNED paths being consider in this _local_ decision as you stated it seems to me just like it is the case with bad uncorrelated policies more harm can be accomplished then good.
Are you guaranteeing that such local autonomy how to prefer signed vs unsigned paths is safe in the bigger picture ?
Just provide the operator with trustworthy information
While signed BGP information may be made trustworthy I think the end goal is that your customers will get service they pay for meaning that their packets will reach the destination. How singed BGP updates are sufficient to accomplish such goal if anyone on the path by simple static route may overwrite directly in the data plane such trustworthy information and redirect your customer packets left and right without you knowing about it ?
Note that such overwrite would not happen if BGP would _always_ advertise only RIB/FIB active routes, but we all know that this is not always the case in some major implementations.
Regards, R. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
