Hi Tony, Thanks you for your comments!
For sure, our goal is not to deprecate SRv6 but solving the overhead issue of SRv6 so that we can use it better. That is why we made the effort in the past year and even longer. I believe we do not need to state the effort we made in the past many years to finish the standard work of SRv6. People know that. IMHO, what we(our customers and over 10 vendor partners) need is an SRv6-capatible solution that is built based on the existing SRv6 tech with minor update. Sure, different solution may have their own standard way and I believe this can be handled by the WGs. I respect this. That is also the point of a standards effort. Thanks, Cheng -----邮件原件----- 发件人: spring [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Tony Li 发送时间: 2021年7月27日 3:56 收件人: [email protected] 主题: [spring] SRv6 compression Hi, The chairs ask that we opine on the mailing list, so I’m happy to kick things off. As I noted within the WG meeting, my preference is that we deprecate SRv6. Compressing it then becomes moot and there is no issue. Failing that, the WG needs to come to rough consensus on one mechanism. That is the point of a standards effort. Tony _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
