On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I find myself rather unsatisfied by > > The SPRING architecture SHOULD leverage the existing MPLS dataplane > without any modification and leverage IPv6 dataplane with a new IPv6 > Routing Header Type (IPv6 Routing Header is defined in [RFC2460]). > > in that the prospects for use of a new routing header, and ipv6 > router/extension header treatment seem poor.
well, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header describes a new routing header type for SR and,btw, there are already multiple interoperable implementations. The statement above only reflects what has been already carried out. s. > and the potential > consequences for chaining these for example seem worth exploring before > electing that course of action. > > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
