Re: [sidr] working group adoption call for draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-01

["Carlos M. Martinez" <[e-mail]>]

hey!

On 5/5/16 3:30 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>     > I think it's an interesting topic to discuss, I'm a little worried
>     > that: "Because the third party said things are 'ok' I'll believe
>     > things are ok!"
>     >
>     > mostly because I don't see a clear method to ensure that 'third party' has:
>     >   1) up-to-date information
>     >
>       Same with RTR cache server.
> 
> 
> ​except I run the server and can get some data about how updated/etc it
> is with respect to collection of roa/etc data.​

Not always. In a couple of IXs I know the RTR server is shared and is
provided as a service to the IXs members.

They trust each other enough to do this, so not trusting the route
server would be kind of silly.

In any case, you, personally as an individual IX member, are free to
have any misgivings about the operational expertise of the IX and you
can adjust your BGP configs accordingly (de-prefing whatever you learn
from elbonia-ix, ignoring validation state, overwriting communities). I
just don't see an argument against what the draft proposes in the
scenario you describe.

However, if you dis-trust a particular IX too much, maybe you just
should de-peer them. But we disgress :-)

-Carlos

PS: I loved the name Elbonia, Can I license it from you ? :-)