Transition to Full BGPsec Deployment: Transitive-BGPsec is Incompatible with BGPsec
draft-wang-sidrops-bgpsec-transition-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ke Xu , Xiaoliang Wang , Zhuotao liu , Li Qi , Yangfei (Basil) Guo | ||
| Last updated | 2026-06-10 (Latest revision 2025-12-07) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document elaborates on the reasons why it is unfeasible to reconstruct the native-BGPsec as a transitive approach, such that a BGP update with a correctly signed BGPsec_PATH attribute can traverse legacy areas and afterwards it can still be properly processed by subsequent native-BGPsec speakers.
Authors
Ke Xu
Xiaoliang Wang
Zhuotao liu
Li Qi
Yangfei (Basil) Guo
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)