Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol
Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu> Sun, 27 April 1997 15:46 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa21782; 27 Apr 97 11:46 EDT
Received: from murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10359; 27 Apr 97 11:46 EDT
Received: from mailing-list by murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.6.9/1.0) id BAA11325; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 01:36:40 +1000
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU by murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.6.9/1.0) with SMTP id BAA11296; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 01:22:15 +1000
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.56) id PA02321; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 01:22:14 +1000 (from bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Received: by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-24) id <AA08584>; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 08:22:09 -0700
From: Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu>
Message-Id: <199704271522.AA08584@zephyr.isi.edu>
Subject: Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol
To: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 08:22:09 -0700
Cc: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, tli@jnx.com, big-internet@munnari.oz.au
In-Reply-To: <199704270855.BAA01355@chimp.jnx.com> from "Tony Li" at Apr 27, 97 01:55:12 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 830
Precedence: bulk
> Hi, we're MIT, we have connectivity to BBN Planet, Harvard and > Cerfnet. We have prefixes 18/8, 36.0/9 and 36.128/9. > Signed, > Jeff Schiller > > Now, you're correct, the connectivity information would show up as bogus > because the other sides wouldn't claim connectivity. However, what > authenticates the prefix assignments? Just because it appears to be > correctly signed by Jeff, do you take it verbatim? I don't. That would > subvert all of Stanford. [You may argue that this is a good thing. ;-)] > For security, I want to see > > MIT is assigned 18/8. > Signed, > Jon Postel > So you would like to discriminate between the chain for 18/8 and the 36.128/9 yes? And find out that there is a viable chain for 18/8 and a broken chain for 36.128/9 from that particular AS? -- --bill
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Bill Manning
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Noel Chiappa
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Per Gregers Bilse
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Pedro Marques
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Tony Li
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Noel Chiappa
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Michael Dillon
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol RADIA PERLMAN
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Noel Chiappa
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Tony Li
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Jeremy Porter
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Noel Chiappa
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Valdis.Kletnieks
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Andrew Partan
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Tony Li
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Jeff Young
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Bill Manning
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Tony Li
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Jon Crowcroft
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Noel Chiappa
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Noel Chiappa
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Noel Chiappa
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Noel Chiappa
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Noel Chiappa
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Andrew Partan
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Noel Chiappa
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol William Allen Simpson
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol William Allen Simpson
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Tim Bass
- Re: Autonomous System Sanity Protocol Jon Crowcroft