On 2013-03-21 14:29, Chris Morrow wrote:
TODAY it reduces the number, yes. 100% agree.
TOMORROW the number of repositories, even those which are 'hosted'
will
be split up by name and/or ip-address...
I have a feeling these will be like DNS servers and likely ripe (ha!)
points for attack by bad folks. So sharing fate for all customers
just
seems like a bad idea.
folks become unhappy with the repository management, but for now I
think
it is reasonable to assume a much smaller number of repositories,
which
is what Sriram and I did in our model.
yup. but having the ability to increase the number of repositories in
the model means we can say: "today with N repositories and M objects
we
see times of Y. Tomorrow when we have X repositories with Y objects
we
should see times of Z"
Agreed.
Additionally, this perspective may well change when things like BGPSEC
router keys need to be published and then ingested by operational
routers for update signing, as the trust model is fairly different,
methinks.
Even the "84%'r" morons (i.e., all those stub ASes) might recognize
this as a threat to their operational autonomy.
fail open,
-danny
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
