Re: SRv6

[Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom com>]

On 17/Sep/20 19:36, mark seery wrote:


> Private line was a common term for leased lines. Leased lines were not 
> encrypted by the operator, AFAIK. This terminology morphed to virtual 
> private line, Ethernet Private Line, virtual private LAN service 
> (VPLS), etc.
>
> "In telecommunication, a private line is typically a telephone company 
> service that uses a dedicated, usually unswitched 
> point-to-point circuit, but it may involve 
> private switchingarrangements, or predefined transmission physical or 
> virtual paths.”
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_line 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_line>
>
> https://www.business.att.com/products/dedicated-internet/#/ 
> <https://www.business.att.com/products/dedicated-internet/#/>
>
> http://etler.com/docs/AT&T%20Pub/TR54077.pdf 
> <http://etler.com/docs/AT&T%20Pub/TR54077.pdf>
>
> https://business.comcast.com/enterprise/products-services/data-networking/ethernet-virtual-private-line 
> <https://business.comcast.com/enterprise/products-services/data-networking/ethernet-virtual-private-line>
>
> VPN is a terminology consistent with past practices. It is P in all 
> the ways discussed on this thread, and historically consistent (at 
> least from a marketing perspective). Whether it is P enough is a 
> reasonable discussion, everyone in I(C)T is going to be facing a wave 
> of voter concern about privacy, IMO.

It's six and half-a-dozen.

"Private Line" isn't the same thing as "Private Network". A small, but 
crucial distinction, particularly for folk on a list like this. Probably 
interchangeable to the ordinary wi-fi user. But then again, operators 
always choose words carefully, and if the contract said "Private Line" 
in lieu of "Private Network", or vice versa, that wasn't by mistake.


> Torn between two lovers: Growing voter concern about privacy & 
> longheld, and arguably increasing, desire to intercept criminal / 
> terrorist communication. I’d actually be curious if any operators have 
> received public sector pushback when they tried to implement encryption.

Sounds like you're making a/the case for MACSec :-).

Anyone know how widely MACSec has been adopted? Or for that matter, 
large-scale encryption on the backbone side?

For me, MACSec is kind of like SyncE... great on paper and in the sales 
pitch, but anyone that truly wants to use those features is probably 
going to be architecting, deploying and managing them themselves, and 
not paying a 3rd party network operator for the priviledge.

As always, I could be wrong...

Mark.