3 ms·
That's why link-layer encryption adds value over higher-layer encryption - it also encrypts layer-3+ headers and metadata.
by azernik 10y ago
That's why link-layer encryption adds value over higher-layer encryption - it also encrypts layer-3+ headers and metadata.
- walrus01 10y agoAnecdotally I don't know of a single ISP that buys N x 10 Gbps transpacific or transatlantic waves/transport (ex: one Wilshire to Equinix Tokyo) that uses link layer crypto. In my example the ISPs are customers of the organizations that actually run the DWDM terminals. Highly redundant core routers like an asr9010 with 2nd/3rd gen line cards, or an mx960 are already expensive enough without making a 24-port 10GbE linecard twice as costly to buy by having crypto features. It is super rare to see such hardware in production for commercial ISPs.
- j1vms 10y agoReading through the comment tree, I'd say general consensus is that, in the case of a long distance underwater cable, link encryption is technically feasible. However, while technically feasible (so as to protect metadata, who's talking to whom, etc.), due to the political weight & financial heft of certain state actors, tapping at the cable link endpoints would remain a strong possibility. This would obviate the actual need to link encrypt except of course for "optics"/marketing to data center customers.