Saku Ytti saku at
Thu Jun 26 06:24:11 UTC 2014

On (2014-06-25 22:45 +0200), Pieter Hulshoff wrote:

> chosen communication protocol. This will in part depend on the customer
> feedback I get, which currently range from our current layer-2 solution to a
> web interface to a CLI. If we go layer-3, we'll probably use a standard like
> SSL/TLS for web pages, and SSH for CLI.

Problem I have with SFP getting control-plane is that then I need provisioning
and potentially config backup system.
I think router CLI and I2C is right place for this, obviously it creates lag,
as first routers won't support it, and you need to do it offline.

Perhaps such lag could be avoided in future if we'd specify some 'host to SFP'
high level protocol, perhaps in much the same way as DHCP 'option' handling?
In this case, router could code arbitrary value to arbitrary option without
understanding what it means, and down the line introduce syntactic sugar for
commonly used features.


More information about the NANOG mailing list