Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption

[Ian Swett <[e-mail]>]

SGTM

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:34 PM Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 4/28/2018 1:08 AM, Jana Iyengar wrote:
> > I agree that negotiating PNE runs the risk of having two types of
> > connections on the Internet. I agree that the risk of blockage doesn't
> > seem high, but honestly, having seen how middlebox features get
> > deployed, I'm not convinced that it won't happen (though I suspect
> > it's unlikely to happen at a large scale). I understand the desire to
> > have it off within DCs though, so I'm sensitive to that need.
> >
> > I'd like to hear more about why making PNE optional isn't a decision
> > that we can punt to later though. I'd like to move along with PNE now,
> > and come back to negotiating this as an option once we have some
> > deployment work/experience in intra DC environments. I'm not yet
> > convinced that this is going to be your biggest cost in an intra-DC
> > environment, and if it is, then we can surely revisit this decision
> > and add a param later to make PNE optional, either later in v1 or in
> > v2. We are talking about a very narrow view into total cost at this
> > point -- this one AES op is unlikely to be the bottleneck. But I have
> > no data, and I don't think anyone has any full deployment experience yet.
> >
> > TL;DR: I'd like to suggest that we move ahead with PR #1079, and
> > continue discussion on adding optional PNE in Issue #1296.
>
> +1
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>