Hi,
After reading a lot of messages, I'm going to offer my considered
opinion as a direct response to Joel's OP.
Firstly, I don't believe that in the end this draft raises any
concerns that are *significantly* different than those raised
when RFC 8986 was in draft. As Ted Hardie mentioned, sectio
Hi SPRING,
I support the CSID adoption.
CSID is the right direction for SRv6 compression. I see many vendors have
implemented CSID, especially REPLACE-CSID Flavor, and the interoperability test
had been made long time ago in different labs, so I believe the mechanism has
been mature. Regardi
Ted,
On 18-Oct-21 20:22, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for the additional clarification. I've cut below to the meat of what
> I understand to be your question:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:19 PM Brian E Carpenter
> mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I wan
Dear WG, WG Chairs,
I support the adoption of draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression.
I have been working on SRv6 for different research project over the last
years.
The flavors defined in the CSID draft are complaint with RFC8986 and builds
on top of the single SRv6 dataplane.
Thanks
G
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the additional clarification. I've cut below to the meat of
what I understand to be your question:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:19 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to draw a distinction between unicast address bits that are
> arbitrary nu
