Benjamin Schwartz wrote:
>> 3. How do ACSes communicate with ASBRs?
> In my view, this is an "implementation detail" within a single AS, and is
> out of scope for the draft. Personally, I imagine the ACS being an
anycast
> service implemented across all the ASBRs, using a
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 3:11 AM gengnan wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
>
>
> In Tunnel Mode, if the source and destination addresses are replaced by
> contact IPs, there will be one (or several) huge aggregated “flow” between
> the two ASes. Does this pose a challenge to intermediate ASes that conduct
>
AS X validate incoming packets
(src=P2, dst=P1) when AS Z also enables risav?
3. How do ACSes communicate with ASBRs?
Best,
Nan
From: IPsec On Behalf Of Benjamin Schwartz
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 5:19 AM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: secdispatch ; ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] RISAV
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:09 AM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Benjamin Schwartz wrote:
> >> Benjamin Schwartz wrote: > In Transport Mode, the
> >> thought is mainly to _avoid_ traffic > engineering, and instead be
> >> able to deploy RISAV with confidence that > your existing TE
Benjamin Schwartz wrote:
>> Benjamin Schwartz wrote: > In Transport Mode, the
>> thought is mainly to _avoid_ traffic > engineering, and instead be
>> able to deploy RISAV with confidence that > your existing TE will not
>> be altered.
>>
>> I thought you replaced the
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:55 AM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Benjamin Schwartz wrote:
> > In Transport Mode, the thought is mainly to _avoid_ traffic
> > engineering, and instead be able to deploy RISAV with confidence that
> > your existing TE will not be altered.
>
> I thought
Benjamin Schwartz wrote:
> In Transport Mode, the thought is mainly to _avoid_ traffic
> engineering, and instead be able to deploy RISAV with confidence that
> your existing TE will not be altered.
I thought you replaced the destination address with that of the ASBR?
mcr> The
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:39 AM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> TL;DR> Important work needing New WG in Routing Area.
>
> Hi, I thought I had read previous versions of RISAV... maybe under a
> different draft name.
Yes, it was previously draft-xu-risav. (The replacement is marked in the
On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, Michael Richardson wrote:
[speaking as individual]
AH has essentially no deployment at this point, and so this is rather a good
plan.
We have been trying to kill it in favour of ESP-NULL, so I'm not sure
I would want to encourage new deployment of it at this point. I
TL;DR> Important work needing New WG in Routing Area.
Hi, I thought I had read previous versions of RISAV... maybe under a
different draft name. I find this version much better than I saw before.
I have some specific technical comments about how to make this work simpler,
but that's not a
10 matches
Mail list logo
