[69981] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W.Gilmore)
Fri Apr 23 00:17:20 2004
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0404230217360.23106@sharpie.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Cc: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
From: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:16:13 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Apr 22, 2004, at 10:18 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>> BGP over PPP? Could be specified, but that'd require replacing the
>> use of
>> TCP. Might be a bit ugly to implement, especially on larger routers
>> with
>> separate control planes.
>
> wasn't there a PPP over SMTP spec? that sounds like a plan for this!
I swear to ghod I was thinking of the telnet over SMTP spec when I read
this, and wondering if we should use that and have the routers telnet
to port 179 over SMTP. Then you could PGP sign the messages! Of
course, you'd have to update your spam filters.... :)
--
TTFN,
patrick
