nanog mailing list archives
Re: MACsec SFP
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:24:11 +0300
On (2014-06-25 22:45 +0200), Pieter Hulshoff wrote:
chosen communication protocol. This will in part depend on the customer feedback I get, which currently range from our current layer-2 solution to a web interface to a CLI. If we go layer-3, we'll probably use a standard like SSL/TLS for web pages, and SSH for CLI.
Problem I have with SFP getting control-plane is that then I need provisioning and potentially config backup system. I think router CLI and I2C is right place for this, obviously it creates lag, as first routers won't support it, and you need to do it offline. Perhaps such lag could be avoided in future if we'd specify some 'host to SFP' high level protocol, perhaps in much the same way as DHCP 'option' handling? In this case, router could code arbitrary value to arbitrary option without understanding what it means, and down the line introduce syntactic sugar for commonly used features. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: MACsec SFP, (continued)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Aris Lambrianidis (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP John Schiel (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Tim Durack (Jun 25)
- RE: MACsec SFP Michael O Holstein (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Saku Ytti (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Glen Turner (Jun 29)
- Re: MACsec SFP Saku Ytti (Jun 29)
- Re: MACsec SFP Glen Turner (Jun 30)
- Re: MACsec SFP Saku Ytti (Jun 30)