[e2e] j'accuse NFV
kelsayed at gmail.com
Mon May 4 06:29:04 PDT 2015
You mean like a hacking packet would say please don't process me via that
nifty NFV firewall or something :-)
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Djamel Sadok <jamel at cin.ufpe.br> wrote:
> May be we could also give the end user flow the possibility to say that it
> does not want to have its data packets processed by any NFV or even black
> list some NFVs (types of functions) on the path. Would this be possible to
> achieve? would it render NFV ineffective? can both NFV and Not NFV (bypass
> it) on given flows live together?
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Matt Mathis <mattmathis at google.com>
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 3:26 PM, <l.wood at surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Ah, j'accuse TLA.
> > >
> > SDN is not is the same bucket, let me assure you.
> > As for TCP, good algorithms are portable between protocols, bad
> > are dangerous at any scale. Once you fully deconstruct the protocol, I
> > don't care so much about the packet format.
> > Thanks,
> > --MM--
> > The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay
> > Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are using our
> > services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. We treat privacy
> > security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.
> > _______________________________________________
> > end2end-interest mailing list
> > end2end-interest at postel.org
> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest
> > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
> end2end-interest mailing list
> end2end-interest at postel.org
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
More information about the end2end-interest