Sander,
For the record I do not find anything what Ole said to be unproductive. In
my view he is leading this group together with Bob very well being neutral
and unbiased from the perspective of the affiliation.
Maybe instead of teaching everyone good manners you could for a change
start using
Ole,
No hostility. It was strictly procedural.
I consider you to be a valued friend. In 100 years, nobody will care about any
of this.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: otr...@employees.org
Sent: Monday, May
Hi,
> The slight hostility I detect in your replies, I suspect has more to do with
> the particular employer hat I also wear as opposed to the chair hat.
Sigh. Who calls a WG chair to order when making unsubstantiated accusations in
reply to a simple request?
I find Ole's behaviour to become
Ole,
OK, the I can reply, contributor to contributor.
Two reasonable people can argue about complexity metrics. Sometimes, these
arguments make sense.
Sometimes, metrics aren't required. By any measure, my bicycle is a more simple
machine than my car.
However, I think that it is unfair to
I think a better question would be – not if hats are on or off – but which hat
– the employee of a vendor hat? The WG chair hat? The CoC hat? The “In
personal capacity” hat?
Like Ron and others – I’m kinda curious here
Andrew
From: spring on behalf of Ron Bonica
Date: Monday, 25 May 2020
Ron,
[changed subject, as this seems of little relevance]
> So that I will know whether I am allowed to reply.
Wearing a chair's hat has never stopped anyone from replying before.
For formal 6man communication Bob and I generally sign with "Best regards, Bob
and Ole, 6man co-chairs".
Unless
So that I will know whether I am allowed to reply.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:22 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: Sander Steffann ; Robert Raszuk ;
spring@ietf.org; 6man
> On 25 May 2020, at 17:49, Ron Bonica wrote:
>
> Ole,
>
> When commenting on list, could you indicate whether hats are on or off?
And that is important to you for this particular message because?
> Juniper Business Use Only
Ole
> -Original Message-
> From: otr...@employees.org
Ole,
When commenting on list, could you indicate whether hats are on or off?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: otr...@employees.org
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 6:31 AM
To: Sander Steffann
Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Ron Bonica ;
spring@ietf.org;
Ketan,
It would not be fair to say that these operators "wish to deploy a Traffic
Engineering solution using a subset of Segment Routing".
It would be fair to say that these operators "wish to deploy IPv6 Traffic
Engineering". Some of these operators don't care about SR. Some are actively
Mach and all,
From my POV saying that " With current SR ... there is no way for the devices
to differentiate traffic over the same link or to the same destination, because
the SID used by all the flows are the same" is inaccurate.
AFAIK it is perfectly possible to associate multiple
Sander,
>> Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to eliminate
>> any other vendor or any other solution to solve the problem at hand rather
>> then rational list of requirements.
>
> My main customer (an ISP in NL) would fit exactly in the list that Ron sent.
> They
Hi Robert,
> Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to eliminate
> any other vendor or any other solution to solve the problem at hand rather
> then rational list of requirements.
My main customer (an ISP in NL) would fit exactly in the list that Ron sent.
They want a
Hi Robert,
"What … would happen … if there is no Routing Header at all and I still modify
DA at each segment endpoint"
Good question. I saw no less than 2 existing drafts and no less than 2
potential proposals with this behavior, and IMO they are all reasonable.
Or reading the RFC8200
Hi Ron,
Thanks for that clarification.
I note that you are not anymore saying "Are not interested in SR" like you had
mentioned before the WG adoption call :
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LheyFD_uwuHp7tiG8Y1CwKngDYI/
So, would it be fair to say that the operator that you are
Hi Ron,
Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to eliminate
any other vendor or any other solution to solve the problem at hand rather
then rational list of requirements.
Btw please observe that most if not all of the below "Does not want" are
optional in any solution. If
Hi Ron,
So what in your opinion would happen with the below if there is no Routing
Header at all and I still modify DA at each segment endpoint ?
Can I still put two Destination options ?
Or reading the RFC8200 verbatim first DOH must be placed before RH hence to
have more then one DOH in a
Hi !
Let me jump to this topic, and tell a fact first: Most design examples of DOH
in RFCs so far do NOT follow the “recommended order” of RFC1883/2460/8200.
EXAMPLE1: RFC3775/3776/4584/6275 requires DOH carrying a specific option is
located after RH and before Fragmentation/AH/ESP (copied
Hi,
Is the "resource allocation" performed only on the controller? If so, sounds
like a virtual resource reservation, or somehow it is more accurate to call it
resource planning. In this case, the interoperability issues may not be the
most concerns. The problem is how to guarantee the
19 matches
Mail list logo
