>>> 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.
[ i note lack of engineering suggestions ] as has been said many times, we agree route leaks are a problem. they are not the only problem. please do not send me any more email without a proposed solution. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
