nanog mailing list archives
Re: SRv6
From: Tom Hill <tom () ninjabadger net>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:10:17 +0100
On 19/09/2020 03:23, Randy Bush wrote:
i know you truely believe the tunnel k00laid. the security community does not.
At this point, I'm beginning to think that you're trolling us with the assertion(s) that the 'P' in "Virtual Private Network" has obviously meant "Privacy" all along, and/or that - as of 2020 - the only suitable definition of "Private", must now equal "suitably secure". If you aren't just winding everyone up, then I would say that you're skirting rather close to the reimagining of SD-WAN. That, or you are haphazardly musing in a direction that ensures "Encrypted SRv6" will become the next gigantic pain^Wdraft for the SPRING WG to endur^Wdebate. One thing that is true: not all present or historical definitions (or acceptable uses) of the word "private" strictly imply or infer privacy. One may prefer an alternate history, but you may find more success in expelling that energy in pursuit of creating a better future. See/also: "broadband" "software defined networks" "the cloud" -- Tom
Current thread:
- Re: SRv6, (continued)
- Re: SRv6 James Bensley (Sep 21)
- Re: SRv6 Greg Shepherd (Sep 21)
- Re: SRv6 Mark Tinka (Sep 22)
- RE: SRv6 aaron1 (Sep 22)
- Re: SRv6 Randy Bush (Sep 21)
- RE: SRv6 Keith Medcalf (Sep 21)
- Re: SRv6 Paul Timmins (Sep 22)
- Re: SRv6 Tom Hill (Sep 15)