mark seery mark.a.seery at
Thu Sep 17 17:36:26 UTC 2020

> On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:24 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at> wrote:
>> For operators already offering FR/ATM services, it was a replacement, using the same principles of traffic separation over a common infrastructure, without encryption as part of the service. So from that perspective only, it was not much of a change for *existing* enterprise customers.
> Indeed. But the difference with Frame Relay and ATM was that telco's never called it a (V)PN. At worst, it was a leased line.

Private line was a common term for leased lines. Leased lines were not encrypted by the operator, AFAIK. This terminology morphed to virtual private line, Ethernet Private Line, virtual private LAN service (VPLS), etc.

"In telecommunication, a private line is typically a telephone company service that uses a dedicated, usually unswitched point-to-point circuit, but it may involve private switchingarrangements, or predefined transmission physical or virtual paths.” <> <> <> <>

VPN is a terminology consistent with past practices. It is P in all the ways discussed on this thread, and historically consistent (at least from a marketing perspective). Whether it is P enough is a reasonable discussion, everyone in I(C)T is going to be facing a wave of voter concern about privacy, IMO.

> Or someone else who might "capture" the operator, and thus, be able to intercept it.

Good point.

> If gubbermints mandate that l2vpn's and l3vpn's be encrypted, the cloud bags will simply take over (not that they haven't, already).

Torn between two lovers: Growing voter concern about privacy & longheld, and arguably increasing, desire to intercept criminal / terrorist communication. I’d actually be curious if any operators have received public sector pushback when they tried to implement encryption.

> Mark.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list