[159401] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OOB core router connectivity wish list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Thu Jan 10 08:51:42 2013
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWxsGryfE0=fuezeqfu6yO7u76DL5YjG4UgT=3a63kDTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:51:04 -0500
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 9, 2013, at 11:18 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>> [P1]: It should be possible to transfer data using tftp, ftp and scp =
(ftp
>> client on the OOB device, scp being used to transfer data *to* the =
device
>> (OOB being scp server).
>=20
> For security and performance reasons, FTP has no place in a modern
> network. If you're still using it anywhere, you're borrowing grief.
> Replace with an http/https client.
>=20
> TFTP has such a strong legacy of use on routers that its presence
> remains just barely tolerable. For now.
We have encountered cases where a vendor TFTP implementation + latency =
from the ROMMON can take a few hours to load images. I'm for ditching =
TFTP and replacing it with HTTP. This forces them to put in a TCP =
stack, and hopefully something that can window-scale and deal with the =
latency vs 'wait for block', ok, req next block..
The testers involved in their labs are never loading an image from =
1600km away so don't get to enjoy this 'fun'.
- Jared=
