Hi all,
I do agree with the point that single solution is better than four of them in
real multi-vendor network.From operator point of view it will be nightmare to
deliver interop even with two different solutions from different vendors.
There are issues even with single standardized thing as you may know.
Thus +1 for single compression solution.
SY,Boris
On Tuesday, August 3, 2021, 04:50:42 PM GMT+3, Ville Hallivuori
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
I would strongly prefer a single solution. While I am not particular on which
of the solutions is selected, DT does make compelling argument for CSID.
I work for a vendor and would hate to have to implement multiple different
header compression schemes. Especially if it comes out of limited microcode
resources. While IETF has a long history of having two competing solutions
(LDP/RSVP-TE, OSPF/ISIS), having competing options in forwarding plane is even
less desirable than it is on the control plane.
Thanks for the DT for their excellent work.
BR,
Ville Hallivuori
On Sat, 31 Jul 2021, at 00:06, Voyer, Daniel wrote:
I agree as well – DT spent a year to come up with an analysis and now have a
conclusion. In my view, we are ready to move with a single standard solution.
This will unlock the vendors community to adopt an SRv6 compression standard
and allow operators to move forward.
At the end of the analysis document, CSID seems to be the clear winner.
Thanks
dan
From: spring <[email protected]> on behalf of Eduard Metz
<[email protected]>
Date: Friday, July 30, 2021 at 7:24 AM
To: Gyan Mishra <[email protected]>
Cc: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <[email protected]>,
"Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Wim Henderickx <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXT]Re: [spring] SRv6 compression
Agree.
The DT has done a great job in the analysis.
Moving forward with a single, standards track solution is preferred/required
for interoperable SRv6 implementations.
cheers,
Eduard
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 6:09 PM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote:
For all operators around the world looking at deployment of SRv6 compression
and being in a holding pattern waiting for SRv6 compression to be standardized
by the IETF.
Given the ubiquitous importance of SRV6 compression and MSD issues with long
strict SR-TE explicit route object, it is critical for interoperability for
all steering use cases that exist today: enterprise, internet, private, access
network - 5G wireless xHaul, mobile core, wireline, MBB, FBB.
We as a WG need a single standardized solution for SRv6 compression for
interoperability to work and all vendors marching to the same sheet of music.
I agree that the NVO3 - GENEVE is a solid precedence path forward to take and
for Spring WG to come to consensus and standardize on one solution and progress
the other solutions as informational if implementations already exist.
Kind Regards
Gyan
Verizon Inc
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:12 AM Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
<[email protected]> wrote:
Same here. We want a single standard method of SID compression to allow the WG
to focus on finalizing it and get vendors hardware implementations updated.
Regards,
Mustapha.
From: spring <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
US/Mountain View)
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:54 AM
To: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 compression
I agree with Wim’s statement that the precedent in NVO3 *could* apply here too:
pick one solution as Standard’s track RFC, and once it is done, the others
might be documented as Informational RFCs if they have implementations.
That would help the industry to move forward.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: spring <[email protected]> on behalf of Henderickx, Wim (Nokia -
BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 9:11 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [spring] SRv6 compression
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
--
Gyan Mishra
Network Solutions Architect
Email [email protected]
M 301 502-1347
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
