[88303] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Sat Jan 28 14:27:41 2006
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: (Your message of "Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:30:57 GMT.")
<OFA6D31A52.8D06553F-ON80257103.005A5CB4-80257103.005AB975@btradianz.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:27:12 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
In message <OFA6D31A52.8D06553F-ON80257103.005A5CB4-80257103.005AB975@btradianz
.com>, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com writes:
>
>> certified validation of prefix ownership (and path, as has been
>> pointed out) would be great. it's clearly a laudable goal and seemed
>> like the right way to go. but right now, no one is doing it. the
>> rfcs that's i've found have all expired. and the conversation about
>> it has reached the point where people seem to have stopped even
>> disagreeing about how to do it. in short, it's as dead as dns-sec.
>> so what are we do do in the meantime?
>
>Perhaps people should stop trying to have these
>operational discussions in the IETF and take the
>discussions to NANOG where network operators gather.
We have tried, of course; see, for example, NANOG 28 (Salt Lake City).
There was no more consensus at NANOG than in the IETF...
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
