[afnog] Another case for RPKI ?

[Mbong Hudson Ekwoge]

@Job - what part of my assessment doesn’t sit well with you? For
technicality, look at how the native features of BGP led to the mentioned
incident. Lastly, the end product of any release will require new code to
be written. Just like we came up with IPv6 as a complete replacement for
v4, a new version of BGP released will address the “mistakes” of the past
while supporting the features which empower new types of workflows.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 20:54, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:

> Dear Mbong Hudson Ekwoge,
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:44 PM Mbong Hudson Ekwoge <hudson at yourvmbg.com>
> wrote:
> > Implementing RPKI is like patching up an already faulty package. Perhaps
> it’s time we look into releasing a newer version of BGP with native
> safeguards put in place to avoid the pitfalls we know of already.
>
> I disagree with your assessment and would like to see you back this up
> with technical arguments. Also note that there is no new version of
> BGP laying around. BGP-4 is all we have.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
-- 
Kind Regards
Mbong Hudson Ekwoge
Mob: +230 592-86076
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20181114/95616236/attachment.html>