Hi Joel and all,
Please see my answer and comments below.
>Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for compressing
>SRv6 information?
Yes, we should pick up one data plane SRv6 compression mechanism. Even if It
will be not an easy choice.
I have been on vendors side for a while but now saying from operator
perspective: we need one standardized solution because we do not want to stuck
with just one vendor and do not want to solve an interop nightmare between 2 or
3 different mechanisms from different vendors by ourselves in the nearest
future.
With all respect for the all vendors who invested much in particular technology.
SY,Boris
On Wednesday, August 4, 2021, 09:52:48 PM GMT+3, Joel M. Halpern
<[email protected]> wrote:
The SPRING Working Group Chairs thank the design team for their efforts
on the requirements and analysis drafts. The question of how the
working group wants to progress that part of the work will be the topic
for a separate email a bit later.
Right now, we are hearing the discussion about how many solutions, and
the perspectives being expressed. While the topic was well-raised, the
discussion to date has not been structured in a way that makes clear to
everyone what the purpose is. In particular, the chairs have decided to
re-ask the question. We ask that even those who have responded in the
discussion respond to this thread. Preferably with both what their
opinion is and an explanation of why.
The question we are asking you to comment on is:
Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for
compressing SRv6 information?
Please speak up. We are looking to collect responses until close of
business PDT on 20-August-2021.
Thank you,
Joel, Jim, and Bruno
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
