Chris,
ok... there seem to be several calls for 'please document what you mean to say'.
and a separate call for starting with a characterization of the problem,
hence the message
that I sent.
this gets to some of the problem(s) that danny (and I think terry)
were concerned with... across administrative domains this all becomes
very dicey :( (or at least very undefined)
My observation was that if one used the mechanism we initially
described, then re-homing an ISP, to "protect" a prefix allocated by
that ISP to another entity, would cause problems re ROAs. This problem
is independent of crossing administrative domains. I don't recall anyone
ever commenting about this issue since we first published the LTAM spec!
sounds like 'crazy talk' (technical term), but sure.
Actually this is a very reasonable response to concerns that have been
raised
about national sovereignty vs. the address allocation hierarchy. I
suggest the US
DoD follow this approach.
ok... so at the end of the day you are going to spin a draft to talk
about this in more detail, or that's what it sounds like you're
planning on doing :) If there were a draft out in the next say 4 weeks
we could have a better discussion about this on-list and then a longer
(and probably more fun) talk at the next meeting in Vancouver? Is 4wks
doable for this?
yes.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
