>Is PGP secure enough for you?
Oh come on now. Both support an strongly encrypted form of
>RIPE-181; it's different.
Not that much. I used RIPE-81 as a generic name. In general case
routing policies which can be implemented by border routers _cannot_ be
implemented in a central box interfacing those border boxes -- simply
because those boxes may have (and do have) exterior peering sessions on
other links/LANs. A large part of routing policies (particularly between
US and Europe) is implemented as intricate interior weighting systems
between announcements from different sides.
Yes.. The protocols support LOCAL_PREF and MED. RIPE-181 has cost,
perf applied on a per peering seesion basis and support for MED.
Whoever wants to play with it can have our ICM-DC-1 configuration,
just to try to represent what it does in RIPE-181 format.
You really need to look at your AS as a whole, not just one config
file. It isn't a one to one translation to Cisco configs. But sure.
Send it anyway (but not to the list).
In any case, my point is that RADB has to be provider-friendly to
They are trying to be provider friendly.