On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> How about this: "We need a way to show how to know that the leak is a >> leak and not another backup path coming to light for other reasons in >> the system" (that might sound familiar :-). > > yes it does.
Eh? > what i see instead is a bunch of noise about process and "it need not be > in X." Do you understand what happened to Google here Randy? Do you believe it's a problem? Do you believe we "ought" to try to solve it somewhere? Do you believe it's fine to deploy RPKI and BGPSEC and ignore this? People believe RPKI / BGPSEC solves this problem in the form of path validation. It does NOT. > i simply do not have the spare time for that. i would deeply > love to hear actual proposed solution(s). I'd like to agree on problems first. -danny _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
