nanog mailing list archives
Re: SRv6
From: mark seery <mark.a.seery () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:56:37 -0700
Sounds like you're making a/the case for MACSec :-).
While I get your point, and it is a good one, no. Once lawyers, finance, and other functions get involved, it goes from being just another technology, to a pain for suppliers and customers alike. Export laws complicate implementation, and vendors can only afford and/or have the operational agility, to do an implementation once. Any security tech that is sufficiently interesting, is going to be a pain for router vendors to implement and operationalize given the government’s attitude to such tech. The lower in the stack it is, the bigger the pain. That said, vendors are being asked to put MACSec in and I suspect more platforms supporting it will become available over time.
Current thread:
- Re: SRv6, (continued)
- Re: SRv6 Anoop Ghanwani (Sep 16)
- Re: SRv6 Randy Bush (Sep 16)
- Re: SRv6 Mark Tinka (Sep 17)
- Re: SRv6 mark seery (Sep 17)
- Re: SRv6 Mark Tinka (Sep 17)
- Re: SRv6 mark seery (Sep 17)
- Re: SRv6 Mark Tinka (Sep 17)
- Re: SRv6 tim () pelican org (Sep 18)
- Re: SRv6 Mark Tinka (Sep 18)
- Re: SRv6 Wilco Baan Hofman (Sep 18)
- Re: SRv6 mark seery (Sep 18)
- Re: SRv6 Mark Tinka (Sep 19)
- Re: SRv6 Valdis Klētnieks (Sep 19)
- Re: SRv6 Mark Tinka (Sep 20)
- Re: SRv6 Łukasz Bromirski (Sep 21)
- Re: SRv6 Mark Tinka (Sep 16)
- Re: SRv6 James Bensley (Sep 16)
- Re: SRv6 Randy Bush (Sep 16)
- Re: SRv6 Paul Timmins (Sep 16)
- Re: SRv6 James Bensley (Sep 18)
- Re: SRv6 Randy Bush (Sep 18)