This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] Draft Activity Plan 2021 - RPKI development
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Draft Activity Plan 2021 - RPKI development
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Draft Activity Plan 2021 - RPKI development
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lukas Tribus
lukas at ltri.eu
Mon Sep 28 14:45:56 CEST 2020
Gert wrote: > When we looked at possible software options for our RPKI validator, we > compared performance, memory, robustness, agility of development, and > this all concluded in "this was nice as a demonstration vehicle, but I do > not want to run it near a any production system, ever". The real issue is: a lot of network operators do NOT have the time for this kind of assessment. They make a judgement call based on the good overall reputation of RIPE (and as Erik mentioned: training) and just go with it. I agree and support sunsetting the development of the RIPE RPKI validator. -- lukas
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Draft Activity Plan 2021 - RPKI development
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Draft Activity Plan 2021 - RPKI development
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]