Subject: Re: [RPSEC] proposed message to the IESG

From: Sandy Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:26:00 -0500 (EST)

>        amen to this..  as an operator, we do have cases where 
>        there is -NOT- a unique orign AS  for a given prefix.

I say again - there's a difference in the address being allocated
to two different organizations and the address being advertised by
two different organizations.

--Sandy
>        amen to this..  as an operator, we do have cases where 
>        there is -NOT- a unique orign AS  for a given prefix.

I say again - there's a difference in the address being allocated
to two different organizations and the address being advertised by
two different organizations.

And, again, that an example of the distinctions we'd have to make
as we tried to define the security requirements.  Rather than say
"oh, you can't represent this, so it is not secureable", you would
say "this is done now, it is important to continue to do, so how
would you represent it so it could be secured".

--Sandy

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

---

From: "Bora Akyol" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:59:06 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of Sandy Murphy
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 2:26 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [RPSEC] proposed message to the IESG
> 
> I say again - there's a difference in the address being 
> allocated to two different organizations and the address 
> being advertised by two different organizations.
> 

Sandy

This DOES happen, in fact there was a UCLA paper
on this topic a while back.

Bora