Tony Li wrote:
So what's the $0.02 fix for eliminating the fate-sharing between routing and payload that GGP got wrong?
Did i say anything about eliminating fate-sharing? What i said is that routing updates should not be _routable_. That means that only parties directily connected to the physical medium can be originators of updates received from that medium. It is like ARP -- you can't do anything about it until you've broken into a directly connected machine, or evaded physical security. I.e. to produce DOS attack with ARP you need to mount a lot more destructive attack first. Actually, given the simple fact that a properly implemented link keepalive protocol provides adequate discovery of link and gateway failures, it is not clear that sending routing updates over the same physical medium as data has any intrinsic value. Similarly, there's no reason why medium cannot be shared between network control and user traffic, as long as network control is given unconditional priority. (And, no, practially all link keepalive protocol implementations are insane; cisco's a notorious example. No flap dampening, no hold-down "blackholing" after a failure (so as not to generate route withdrawals for transient link outages), silly priority and no sub-second ping intervals, and forget about LQM). --vadim