Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
From: Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:57:55 -0500



On 27-Jan-2006, at 11:54, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

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.

Perhaps by "well-operated", Michael was referring to something like the hierarchical authentication scheme used by the RIPE database, which ultimately provides access control for route objects using RIR allocation/assignment data?


Joe


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault