So -- what did happen to Panix?

Mon Jan 30 14:11:13 UTC 2006

sandy,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 08:29:45AM -0500, sandy at tislabs.com wrote:
> >the scheme that josh karlin has been advocating in pretty good bgp
> >involved only supressing a doubtful announcement when you have a
> >better, more trusted announcement.
> 
> Not a doubtful announcement, a novel announcement.  Not a better
> announcement, a more usual announcement.  The trust part, like beauty,
> is in the eye of the beholder.

i just don't think you're following along.  i think we're talking
about different things.  read josh, stephanie forrest and jennifer
rexford's paper:  

http://www.cs.unm.edu/~treport/tr/05-10/pgbgp.pdf

> Don't get me wrong - I think basing decision on some "trusted"
> summary of historical behavior is going to be important, unless and
> until we get some approach that gives a more deterministic answer.
> But I do believe that we need to consider carefully how this will
> play with dynamic, particularly unplanned, changes in who is
> announcing what. 

josh's scheme only comes into play when there are two, competing
origination patterns.  in this case the question is just which one to
believe.  

agreed that we should be careful with anything that reduces the
ability of people to change routing dynamically.  but let's remember:
that ability is already constrained by the fact that responsible
providers use prefix filters and require some kind of out-of-band
(IRR, letter, email) validation of prefix ownership. routing a new
prefix with a new origination pattern is not especially dynamic now,
so let's not worry about throwing out a baby that's not even in the
bath.  

t.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
todd underwood
chief of operations & security 
renesys - internet intelligence
todd at renesys.com   www.renesys.com