nanog mailing list archives
Re: MACsec SFP
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:17:27 +0300
On (2014-06-30 13:28 +0930), Glen Turner wrote:
After the SFF Committee specifies the registers the operating system vendors or vendors of devices would then add commands to support to toggle the I2C needed to program those registers with MACsec keys, etc.
This is what I tried to tackle, this creates chicken/egg scenario, no one is buying optic, because you can't program it from your router, and you can't program it in your router, as no one is using the optic and vendor won't put development hours on it. If instead there would be standardized (DHCP option like) system to code arbitrary value to arbitrary location, you could code the feature, without router understanding what it is, after a while, syntactic sugar might be added for convenience. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: MACsec SFP, (continued)
- 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)