Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Sat, 10 November 2012 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6B621F8660 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:24:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zdjSiqVihpBK for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:24:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:44:76:96:27:243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3319D21F8640 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:24:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta23.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.90]) by qmta13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Mt461k0041wfjNsADtQJDX; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:24:18 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.103] ([98.248.36.188]) by omta23.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id MtQG1k00W43ZcXW8jtQHm3; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:24:17 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <4C845B01-B282-46FB-A4B8-7ADDBCC9C6E5@tcb.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:24:16 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B80A8335-49BD-4B90-A024-FA82B1E8EE5F@tony.li>
References: <20121110032942.BD27018C113@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4C845B01-B282-46FB-A4B8-7ADDBCC9C6E5@tcb.net>
To: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:24:21 -0000

Amazing.  For years, I unsuccessfully try to spark discussions.  Then I say that we're done and THAT sparks discussions.  ;-)


>> We still have the same old kludgy BGP global routing system we always had,
>> and _nothing_ has been proposed to improve/replace it.


Blatantly not true.  There's this thing called NIMROD that has been proposed to replace it.  Perhaps you've heard of it?  ;-)


> No, but I suspect if we bolt on BGPSEC extensions and things like "periodic updates" and per router signing & validation of updates, we're going to need to work on a replacement in short order.
> 
> Some of the smart folks here applying their perspective would certainly be of value, methinks.


I agree that some security needs to be deployed.  I'm not convinced that it needs to be BGPSEC.  We've muddled along for many years and never found the gumption to actually deploy anything.  Must not be important to people.  I don't get it, but that's the observable behavior.  

In any case, this doesn't seem like a research topic.  This is pretty clearly an engineering issue.

Tony