[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: rfc2385
> >> > Grepping the RFC directory shows that LDP (RFC 3036) mandates 2385, too.
> >> > Does this change what we want to do? Or is LDP "close enough" to BGP
> >> > that the same reasoning will apply? (3446 also suggests 2385. This
> >> > spreading use is the reason I don't want to promote 2385.)
>
> Yes. The threat model for LDP is even less scary then for BGP,
> because all LDP sessions are single-hop.
>
Aha... so could SMB's waiver for BGP-4 also apply to LDP?
Maybe not right now, but possibly later when those LDP people
indeed want to advance?
We should certainly be prepared that they may claim the same waiver
should apply if indeed the threat modle is less scary.
We better think about that before we set an easy precedent.
Bert