[144176] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Do Not Complicate Routing Security with Voodoo Economics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Neil J. McRae)
Sun Sep 4 11:35:57 2011
From: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org>
To: Jennifer Rexford <jrex@CS.Princeton.EDU>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 15:32:36 +0000
In-Reply-To: <455386DC-AB1E-44BB-A0E3-23BFC3CF5F15@CS.Princeton.EDU>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Jen,
What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically?
Neil.
On 04/09/2011 16:07, "Jennifer Rexford" <jrex@CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>
>
>As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to
>clarify the purpose of this group. Our goal is to assemble a group of
>vendors and operators (not "publish or perish" academics) to discuss and
>recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security
>solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work). It
>is not to design new security protocols or to "write policy and
>procedures for operators" -- that would of course be over-reaching and
>presumptuous. The goal is specifically to identify strategies for
>incremental deployment of the solutions designed and evaluated by the
>appropriate technical groups (e.g., IETF working groups). And, while the
>SIGCOMM paper you mention is an example of such a strategy, it is just
>one single example -- and is by no means the recommendation of a group
>that is not yet even fully assembled yet. The working group will debate
>and discuss a great many issues before suggesting any strategies, and
>those strategies would be the output of the entire working group.
>
><tongue in cheek> As for "publish or perish" academics, I doubt you'll
>find that the small set of academics who choose to go knee deep into
>operational issues do so because they are trying to optimize their
>academic careers... ;) </tongue in cheek>
>
>-- Jen
>
