Re: Questions regarding the security mechanisms//RE: CRH and RH0

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Does this mean that I can not fork such "conversation" and ask about
connectivity restoration with CRH ?

R.


On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 7:12 PM John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> Your comments have no relevance to the conversation I’m having with
> Jingrong. You’ve completely misunderstood, we are talking about security.
>
> —John
>
> On May 22, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> I am afraid any new technology IETF adopts to work on should support a
> basic minimum of network functionality.
>
> And while I know some people still depend on IGP or BGP convergence in
> their networks - new designs are more and more based on local
> protection (node or link).
>
> Therefore it should be in the interest of the authors of the new proposal
> to describe how local protection works with their idea. Not the other way
> around.
>
> Unless you are questioning the need for local protection all together and
> thinking that seconds or minutes of outage is all ok. (Which I do sincerely
> hope you do not).
>
> Many thx,
> R.
>
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:01 PM John Scudder <jgs=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I’m not sure if it’s worth pursuing this much farther considering it’s
>> not directly applicable to CRH as such. However:
>>
>> On May 22, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > [XJR] The "complemented per-node protection " is very useful for a
>> layered security mode.
>>
>> I might be convinced if you have reasons for this that address the
>> analysis I provided in my own message. However, a bald statement that it’s
>> “very useful” without further support doesn’t seem too helpful.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> —John
>
>
>