"Is BGP safe yet?" test

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Mon Apr 20 15:39:18 UTC 2020


On 20/Apr/20 17:31, Tom Beecher wrote:

> ( Speaking 100% for myself. )
>
> I think it was tremendously irresponsible, especially in the context
> of current events, to take a complex technical issue like this and
> frame it to the general public as a 'safety' issue. 
>
> It's created articles like this
>https://www.wired.com/story/cloudflare-bgp-routing-safe-yet/ , which
> are terrible because they imply that RPKI is just some simple thing
> that anyone not doing is just lazy or stupid. Very few people will
> read to the bottom note about vendors implementing RPKI support, or do
> any other research on the issue and challenges that some companies
> face to do it. It's not their job; that's ours. 
>
> I feel like there has been more momentum in getting more people to
> implement PKI in the last 18-24 months. ( Maybe others with different
> visibility have different opinions there. ) There are legitimate
> technical and business reasons why this isn't just a switch that can
> be turned on, and everyone in our industry knows that. 
>
> In my opinion, Mr. Prince is doing a great disservice by taking this
> approach, and in the longer term RPKI adoption will likely be slower
> than it would have been otherwise. I genuinely appreciate much of what
> Cloudflare does for the sake of 'internet good' , but I believe they
> wildly missed the mark here.

The issue is that due to the democratization of information, every one
is now an expert.

So if we thought something only appealed to an obvious audience, think
again.

Mark.



More information about the NANOG mailing list