MACsec SFP
Pieter Hulshoff
phulshof at aimvalley.nl
Tue Jun 24 08:55:31 UTC 2014
On 24-6-2014 10:21, Saku Ytti wrote:
> For this solution to be marketable, it needs to be extremely cheap, as
> you're essentially competing against cheapest consumer grade switches
> to subrate a port. These ports would not be revenue generating, but
> almost invariably MGMT ports to legacy equipment, issues like QoS are
> not relevant, price point is. From switch POV, packets would be lost
> on-link when rate exceeds, and TCP would then decrease rate. So SFP
> would need to implement rudimentary buffering and packet dropping. And
> as always, it's best if there is some way for these to work without
> any configuration, as the moment you need to configure 1 thing, you
> need to develop provisioning system and potentially also configuration
> backups, which may in some organizations make solution prohibitively
> expensive compared to using small switch from existing vendor, which
> is already supported by systems
So basically a 1G connection to the switch, buffering with frame drop,
and a tri-rate RJ45 connector? Sounds like something that could easily
be built into our Chronos platform
(http://www.aimvalley.com/portfolio_item/chronos-smart-sfp-tstransparent-synce-sfp/).
We'd just have to remove the SyncE, and add the 10/100 Mb support.
Probably the most complex part is to build a business case for it to
pitch to our management. Would anyone be willing to email me a price
indication, and perhaps an indication of how many of these products
would be needed? No obligations of course; just to get an idea of
whether a business case can be built?
Kind regards,
Pieter Hulshoff
More information about the NANOG
mailing list