Pablo,
RFC 8354 reinforces my analysis in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3WGuQumIfcmH281nwq3s9Un6raI. Are
you saying that you agree with this analysis?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 4:17 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
Cc: SPRING WG <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative
advantages of SRv6
Ron,
SPRING has already done this work and documented the SRv6 use-cases in RFC8354
before progressing with the SRv6 standardization.
Further on, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming is a Standards Track
document.
I fail to see how a cite from RFC8354 or any other text on "SRv6 vs SR-MPLS"
standardises anything at all.
Note that we have already removed text from
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (e.g. illustrations) because it was
not standardising anything.
Thank you for the suggestion,
Pablo.
From: spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on
behalf of Ron Bonica
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, 30 December 2019 at 11:08
To: SPRING WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative
advantages of SRv6
Pablo,
Would you consider adding a short section to the draft explaining the relative
advantages of SRv6 over SR-MPLS? This section would explain why an network
operator would deploy SRv6 instead of SR-MPLS.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
