On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:35:51PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > Yes, and that's because they're expecting secure links. > > 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. > > > No matter what, the code is a step in the right direction. > > 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.
Attachment:
pgp8RDtJD6r1Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature