Robert,
Are you suggesting an attempt to merge the best of SRv6 with the best of SRv6+?
This might be a good idea.
Ron
From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:10 PM
To: Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl>
Cc: Voyer, Daniel <daniel.vo...@bell.ca>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>;
SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>; Andrew Alston
<andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>; James Guichard
<james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>; Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; Rob
Shakir <ro...@google.com>; Zafar Ali (zali) <z...@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG
(was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)
Hi Sander,
No. And that is why I want SRv6+ to move forward, to avoid getting trapped in
the SRv6 walled garden.
The way IETF works (at least in vast majority of WGs) is that if you do not
like a specific element of a solution or if something is missing from any
solution during WG process - you contribute to it to either fix it or to make
sure the WG product is the best possible.
So nothing prevented you for all the years IETF has been dealing with SRv6
process to take an active part in its standardization.
Asking for adoption of solution which brings nothing new to already shipping
solution of SR-MPLS when it would travel over IPv4 or IPv6 is at best
counterproductive.
It is like now you would be asking to adopt some individual drafts which woke
up and defined new data plane and new control plane for services you are
running in your network - and call those MPLS+, L2VPN+, L3VPN+ and mVPN+
without any new functionality.
Would it make sense ?
Kind regards,
Robert
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
