David,
Ever since LTAM was designed, I have been intrigued by one of its
motivation that a nation can protect nets within its administrative
jurisdiction by directing internal nets to rely on a national authority for
RPKI data for these critical infrastructure resources. I think it’s a
significant concern in deploying RPKI worldwide. As you know, I was trying to
figure out how to utilize LTAM or Suspenders especially where NIRs exist. I am
therefore looking forward to seeing your new draft called SLURM that is going
to bring some new ideas.
Di Ma
Internet Domain Name System Beijing Engineering Research Centre (ZDNS)
在 2014年2月7日，上午2:53，David Mandelberg <[email protected]> 写道：
> On 2014-02-05 21:12, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> The lta-use-cases draft was motivated as a way to start/guide
>>> discussion of the Local Trust Anchor Management draft and the
>>> Suspenders draft.
>>>
>>> The question is whether we need both efforts, or only one, and if so,
>>> which one.
>>
>> if you accept the three cases of the use cases draft, you may be left
>> thinking that neither ltam nor suspenders meets the needs. it's all
>> about roas, certs are incidental.
>
> I think Suspenders meets Carol's use case. Carol could publish a LOCK and
> INRD as a precautionary measure. Then when the Dutch court attacks, relying
> parties that use Suspenders would detect the attack and could continue to
> route to Carol.
>
> I'm working on a new draft called SLURM (Simplified Local internet nUmber
> Resource Management) that I hope to have out before the cutoff next week. I'm
> pretty sure it handles Bob's use case, and I think it could also handle
> Alice's use case if I understand that case correctly.
>
>
>
> --
> David Eric Mandelberg / dseomn
> http://david.mandelberg.org/
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
