BGP (in)security makes the AP wire
smb at cs.columbia.edu
Sun May 9 16:47:53 UTC 2010
On May 9, 2010, at 12:30 47PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:54:46AM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> And when I drive someplace, I do indeed go by the signs I see, which are
>> not erected by a central authority, as I move along. (I don't have a
>> route from here to Fairbanks, Alaska, but my MCA shows one from here to
>> Council Bluffs, Iowa, and from there there are several I might use,
>> depending on what signs I see ("Warning, I29 N closed at Mondamin due to
>> flooding") when I get there.)
> Speaking about that, is anyone currently seeing geographic (local-knowledge)
> routing and authorityless address (=position) allocation from coordinates
> (e.g. WGS 84 position fixes) in any realistic time frame as a major component
> on the Internet?
> Presumably, one could prototype something simple and cheap at L2 level
> with WGS 84->MAC (about ~m^2 resolution), custom switch firmware and GBIC
> for longish (1-70 km) distances, but without a mesh it won't work.
It was discussed during the IPng days. My view at the time -- and my view today -- is that there's an inherent conflict between that and multiple competitive ISPs. Suppose there's an IP address corresponding to 40.75013351 west longitude, 73.99700928 north latitude (my building, according to Google maps). To which ISP should it be handed for delivery? Must all ISPs in a given area peer with each other?
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
More information about the NANOG