On Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Florian Weimer wrote: > Interesting, thnaks. It's not the vendors I would expect, and it's not > based on SEND (which is not surprising at all and actually a good > thing).
Personally I think SEND is never going to get any traction. > Is this actually secure in the sense that it ties addresses to specific > ports for both sending and receiving? I'm asking because folks have > built similar systems for IPv4 which weren't. The CLI screenshots look > good, better than what most folks achieve with IPv4. As far as I know, it's designed to work securely in an ETTH scenario, which implies both sending and receiving (if I understood you correctly). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se _____ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
