[nitinics]

BGP's transitive trust mechanism involves 2 parties. The router making an "announcement" or "withdrawal" and the router "accepting" or "origin validating" these. If one of the party announces a false/hijacked route to its upstreams it could have an adverse effect to the entire Internet routing table.

BGP itself, is a path vector protocol (came from standard and vetted Graph Theory algorithms) and therefore for the scalability of the Internet Prefixes - works perfectly with many network devices talking the standard protocol.

Work has always been done within the IETF wg on BGP attributes that the protocol carries for many use-cases and so far BGP has been the preferable choice for many networks, both within an AS and outside an AS(Autonomous System).

You wouldn't want the Internet be controlled by a central authority, that is an absolute NO - at the same time - you have to work together to make sure the "global routing table" or the "default free zone" is not polluted with unnecessary updates and churn and overseeing misbehavior from other ASes.

I believe with so many disparate organizations and networks around the world - we could not have built a common talking "language"/"protocol" without having accountability into it and constantly monitoring it.