|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:36:28 -0800 To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu > what I saw by going through the diffs, etc.. that I have > available to me is that the prefix was registered to be announced > by our customer and hence made it into our automatic IRR filters. i.e., the 'error' was intended, and followed all process. so, what i don't see is how any hacks on routing, such as delay, history, ... will prevent this while not, at the same time, have very undesired effects on those legitimately changing isps. seems to me that certified validation of prefix ownership and as path are the only real way out of these problems that does not teach us the 42 reasons we use a *dynamic* protocol. what am i missing here? randy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |