Many thanks to the DT for the good and thorough work(1)!
And many thanks to Wim for bringing this thread to the list.
My view as an operator is:
We already have more than enough standards and options. Often enough
actually introducing new technology in a multi-vendor environment is a
pain because not all vendors implement the same option at the same time,
and rather have different understandings of the overall architecture and
of priorities.
Thus I'd really suggest do proceeed with just a single solution.
If I got it right, one vendor and one operator intend to continue with
CRH independently of segment routing. That is of course perfectly
legitimate. From my perspective it's still a pity because we won't pull
together. And the vendor will - from my perspective - waste development
energy on technology that will never be useful for my enviroment.
Best regards,
Martin
P.S.:
(1) The requirement I suggested in April, concerning Number Resource
Management, apparently didn't make it into the documents. But if I get
it right, the overall reesults wouldn't have changed.
Am 27.07.21 um 09:11 schrieb Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp):
Given the design team accomplished the work on providing requirements
and analysis to compress an SRv6 SID list, I would recommend we pick 1
solution similar to what was done in NVO3 (when we discussed GENEVE,
GUE, GPE, etc) given this has to be implemented in HW..
I hope we can conclude on this asap and move forward on this topic
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
