Chairs,
I believe that we have two independent requests for a comparison of the
benefits of SRv6 over SR-MPLS in the network programming draft.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 11:55 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative
advantages of SRv6
Ron,
If you want to discuss your analysis please let's do so in a separate email
thread out of the context of the Working Group Last Call of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
As I said before: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming is a Standards
Track document and this topic is not about any standardization, hence out of
scope of this document.
Same applies to other content (e.g. illustrations) that was formerly in network
programming and we moved to a separate draft since it was not standardizing
anything at all and was merely informative.
Thanks,
Pablo.
From: Ron Bonica <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2020 at 19:17
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: SPRING WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative
advantages of SRv6
Pablo,
RFC 8354 reinforces my analysis in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3WGuQumIfcmH281nwq3s9Un6raI<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3WGuQumIfcmH281nwq3s9Un6raI__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SolNvh35q4NS-PTVWOxXAzbTnMHltfvPWi_OSjhMYkmm_NucR6imYrrLvc35Kat6$>.
Are you saying that you agree with this analysis?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 4:17 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: SPRING WG <[email protected]<mailto:[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
Please excuse any typos, sent from my 'smart'phone.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
