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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>