[88286] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Fri Jan 27 11:57:13 2006
In-Reply-To: <OFBD550826.D224D94E-ON80257103.0049A2AC-80257103.004A17C1@btradianz.com>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:54:49 -0500
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jan 27, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Wouldn't a well-operated network of IRRs used by 95% of
> network operators be able to meet all three of your
> requirements?
Maybe I missed something, but didn't Verio say the prefix was in
their internal registry, and that's why it was accepted.
IOW: It didn't solve this problem. So I guess we're discussing the
other 5%?
--
TTFN,
patrick
