Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?

...

Perhaps people should stop trying to have these operational discussions in the IETF and take the discussions to NANOG where network operators gather.

We have tried, of course; see, for example, NANOG 28 (Salt Lake City). There was no more consensus at NANOG than in the IETF...

One attempt almost 3 years ago, doesn't sound very serious to me. And if the discussion is only concerned with seeking consensus on implementing a new flavor of BGP protocol then it isn't much of a discussion. In fact, there was a consensus at Salt Lake City that the issues of routing security could be adequately dealt with by existing tools and protocols. Not all problems require new protocols to solve them. --Michael Dillon