[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ACLs

Smith, Donald wrote:


The goal is to improve security:)
Writing requirements that the major router vendor can't support might mean
the requirements get ignored as TOO HARD.


Agreed.   There is a continuum from vendor marketing literature to
things that are impossible due to the laws of physics.

I'm hoping that we can some out with a list of real, attainable operator
requirements that are somewhere to the right of  marketing literature
and hopefull more than a set of least common denominators that
no one will object to.


I still believe acls that have little to no impact is an important
requirement
but getting a major router vendor to completely change their architecture
could take a few years.
Granted. But I think the case can be made that high performance hardware based
fiters are certianly best, mostly common, and definatly a practice. Do you think
this should be dropped to accomodate vendors who may currently have problems
with it ? Others ?

---George