[88314] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com)
Mon Jan 30 04:52:58 2006
In-Reply-To: <20060128192712.8ED203BFDB1@berkshire.machshav.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:55:01 +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> >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...
One attempt almost 3 years ago, doesn't sound very
serious to me. And if the discussion is only concerned
with seeking consensus on implementing a new flavor
of BGP protocol then it isn't much of a discussion.
In fact, there was a consensus at Salt Lake City that
the issues of routing security could be adequately dealt
with by existing tools and protocols. Not all problems
require new protocols to solve them.
--Michael Dillon
