--T4sUOijqQbZv57TR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:35:51PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Yes, and that's because they're expecting secure links.
>=20
> This is like saying "the only way I can keep my lights on is to put a
> penny into the fuse box instead of a fuse." The fuse is there to
> protect you from a circuit overload, so using a penny is a bad
> idea. The TCP/MD5 requirement is there to protect your BGP sessions
> from being attacked, so using a fake implementation to get around the
> requirement is also a bad idea.
>=20
> > No matter what, the code is a step in the right direction.
>=20
> Absolutely, and as soon as it actually checks that it is getting
> properly signed packets, there should be no reason not to turn it
> on.

I agree with everything up to this point, although I note that we are
correctly signing our packets, so the relying party (cisco or whoever)
isn't having their own validation assumptions broken..

> Meanwhile, I am not sure we should be telling people to use it.

I'm not sure anyone did, in fact I rather got the opposite impression
of a WIP.

--
Dan.


--T4sUOijqQbZv57TR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFAjlNeEAVxvV4N66cRAnBEAJ4sZ5WRKuu9twQ/Hod1bI2MoOeFNwCg1Y+j
FtuAM8Es12lCykiNm8v7KP8=
=i7Ee
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--T4sUOijqQbZv57TR--