IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [RPSEC] FW: AS 8437 announced a quarter of the net for half of an hour

"Tony Li" <tli@tropos.com> Tue, 15 August 2006 05:01 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GCr36-0002xc-1M; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:01:08 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GCr34-0002xW-Kt for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:01:06 -0400
Received: from iceblock01.troposnetworks.com ([12.108.168.187] helo=iceblock01.tropos.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GCr33-0002z0-6c for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:01:06 -0400
Received: (qmail 8451 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2006 05:01:25 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on iceblock01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 required=6.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
Received: from ca-bay-exch-01.tropos.com (192.168.1.49) by iceblock01.tropos.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2006 05:01:25 -0000
Received: from LIPC ([192.168.1.157]) by ca-bay-exch-01.tropos.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:01:03 -0700
From: "Tony Li" <tli@tropos.com>
To: "'william\(at\)elan.net'" <william@elan.net>, <tony.li@tony.li>
Subject: RE: [RPSEC] FW: AS 8437 announced a quarter of the net for half of an hour
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:00:57 -0700
Message-ID: <00b101c6c027$cbb656e0$807d14ac@tropos.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0608142112140.12655@sokol.elan.net>
Thread-Index: AcbAJhPL5sx81Hp1TCyeE+NkV9cplAAAQ0fw
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2006 05:01:03.0579 (UTC) FILETIME=[CF002AB0:01C6C027]
X-Antivirus: Scanned by Tropos Antivirus 1.0.4
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, 'Iljitsch van Beijnum' <iljitsch@muada.com>
X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tony.li@tony.li
List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements <rpsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>, <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rpsec>
List-Post: <mailto:rpsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>, <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org

William,

If the solution is done correctly, the announcements would not only be
unsigned, but they clearly would conflict with existing signed
advertisements, and would lack the authorization of address space
delegation to the origin.  The bogon announcements would, in all
likelihood be rejected on two grounds.  

This is a benefit to the authorized prefix holder and advertiser of
signed prefixes.  This then acts as further motivation for prefix
holders to actually deploy the solution and get their own prefixes
signed.  It is exactly this property that will encourage widespread
deployment of a solution.  If only we could agree on one...

Tony



_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
RPSEC@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email