IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: BGP-4+

"Dorian R. Kim" <dorian@cic.net> Thu, 19 December 1996 00:18 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa13756; 18 Dec 96 19:18 EST
Received: from merit.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28624; 18 Dec 96 19:18 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.4/merit-2.0) id SAA08791 for idr-outgoing; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:57:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from interlock.ans.net (interlock.ans.net [147.225.5.5]) by merit.edu (8.8.4/merit-2.0) with SMTP id SAA08785 for <bgp@merit.edu>; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:56:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA27874 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for bgp@ans.net); Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:56:55 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:56:55 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:56:52 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dorian R. Kim" <dorian@cic.net>
Reply-To: "Dorian R. Kim" <dorian@cic.net>
To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
Cc: Susan Hares <skh@merit.edu>, dkatz@cisco.com, bgp@ans.net
Subject: Re: BGP-4+
In-Reply-To: <199612182259.OAA20995@puli.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961218185104.27290C-100000@nic.hq.cic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Yakov Rekhter wrote:

> > 2) Security Considerations
> > Is it your understanding that users need this security or is
> > TCP good enough?
> 
> I would like to get a feedback from the WG on this question.

While security is a concern, I don't think we need in-protocol security
support. IMO, the best place to apply effort is in securing TCP, where we
already have tools at our disposal.

-dorian

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email