Security over SONET/SDH
William Allen Simpson
william.allen.simpson at gmail.com
Sun Jun 23 21:03:49 UTC 2013
On 6/23/13 10:57 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Christopher Morrow
> <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM, William Allen Simpson
>> <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/23/13 12:48 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>>> That's rather a surprising choice (ATM product) for an IP network.
>>> Please describe what backbone you are running that uses a FASTLANE?
>> I'd be surprised if a civilian org could buy a fastlane device,..
>> maybe they moved out of the gov't only world though since the last
>> time I saw one? It does claim to do oc-48 rate sonet though.
> claims 40gbps... I don't know that a purely civilian org can purchase
> these though, nor the kg-75, despite these being on the GD site.
And at $189,950 MSRP, obviously every ISP is dashing out the door
for a pair for each and every long haul fiber link. ;-)
Hard to see the IETF multi-vendor interoperability specifications. It
does mention SNMPv3, unlike all their other products which use a
proprietary management scheme. Also HTTP, although no mention of its
At least the FASTLANE mentioned above specifies FIREFLY -- the mere
rumor of which was our basis for naming Photuris [RFC2522].
>>> Hopefully, other folks are securing their PPP or ethernet packets?
But I don't see where you mention that Google is actually using
these to secure your fiber?
More information about the NANOG