nanog mailing list archives
Re: rpki vs. secure dns?
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer () nic fr>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:30:06 +0200
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 08:59:28PM +0000, Paul Vixie <vixie () isc org> wrote a message of 43 lines which said:
ROVER expects that we will query for policy at the instant of need. that's nuts for a lot of reasons, one of which is its potentially and unmanageably circular dependency on the acceptance of a route you don't know how to accept or reject yet.
If someone starts to announce 2001:db8:f00::/48 *and* all the name servers for 0.0.f.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa are in 2001:db8:f00::/48, then I suggest that he is wrong, not Rover...
Current thread:
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns?, (continued)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Alex Band (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Richard Barnes (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Paul Vixie (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Randy Bush (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Randy Bush (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Shane Amante (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? David Conrad (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Shane Amante (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Paul Vixie (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Randy Bush (May 30)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 29)
- Re: rpki vs. secure dns? Dobbins, Roland (May 01)