Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Discontiguous Deployment (Show of Hands)....

From: [email-masked] (Sandy Murphy)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:41:25 -0500 (EST)

I got to thinking about:

Tony Tauber said:

>>   o  In an environment where secured service is in the process of
>>      being deplyed a mechanism MUST exist to support a transition
>>      free of service interruption.
>
>I think the original bullet is about something else and still has
>merit, but I like your addition.

If a secured service requires a change in the router software,
would it not then require a service interrruption to upgrade the software?
Is this stipulation intended to outlaw any and all in-band secured service?
Would a replacement for the TCP MD5 method, for example, be outlawed?

Just how broad a "free of service interruption" requirement is this?

--Sandy

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:55:34 -0500

> would it not then require a service interrruption to upgrade the software?

Some routers can do a change in software without disruption.  For
routers that don't that shouldn't disqualify the protocol change.
Obviously no progress can be made without software changes.

> Is this stipulation intended to outlaw any and all in-band secured service?

No.  IMHO.

> Would a replacement for the TCP MD5 method, for example, be outlawed?

In that case BGP gracefull restart might be suggested as a means of
easing the transition.  Again, the absense of gracefull restart in an
implementation or failure to use it shouldn't disqualify the protocol
extension.

> Just how broad a "free of service interruption" requirement is this?

Do it right and it could be completely free of service interruption.
I think the intent is to completely disallow "flag day" changes that
require simultaneious change to multiple routers that can't be
accomplished in a reasonable amount of time and to discourage changes
that require taking one thing down before bringing another up in a way
that can't be done at all without disruption.  For BGP session
restarts gracefull restart should be assumed.

But then again, I'm just lurking so I could be clueless (again? :).

Does the above statement need this level of clarification in the
document in your opinion?  [Assuming I've got it mostly right here.]

Curtis