[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPv4 Security
Ran,
I have to take exception to some points in your reply.
First, the proper focus for our discussion is requirements. And the
requirement I was placing on the table for discussion was simply: "Is it worth
rolling our own format, or can the NLSP format work for IPSP (without
objectionable performance penalty, of course)?" Believe me, I am not
politically motivated to favor one format over another. Especially since the
impact on any implementation of a format change is minimal, anyhow. Certainly
not something I'm going to get worked up about. Of much greater impact are the
functions being provided, and here all the proposals are in fairly broad
agreement already. My interest in formats is limited to picking one which
satisfies the broadest set of requirements. And if those requirements include
the flexibility to support future growth, then I think the NLSP formats may
have value.
Please argue with my rationale if I'm wrong, but please don't attack my
motivation.
I also maintain that there _is_ a really significant performance penalty to
be paid if word alignment is not maintained, and that in fact this is a more
important issue for efficient implementations of NLSP than it's TLV encoding.
But that is really an NLSP issue, and we should return to pruning requirements
for IPSP from the set we arrived at during the last IETF meeting.
Regards,
Jim Zmuda
Follow-Ups: