Alvaro, Regarding the section IPv6 Segment Routing in the Core networks, I have following comments: In order to justify the requirement, I think it tries to romove all possible options for the designed core network: -- MPLS: it is definitely be removed firstly. -- L2VPN/L3VPN: it is related with MPLS. I think it is naturally removed. Then the designed core network has no purpose to bear L2VPN/L3VPN service. The network is only for IP routing. -- IPv4: it is removed for the reason clarified by the text's self. That is, there should be no co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6. Or else, the use cases described for segment routing can only apply to IPv6. The network is only for IPv6 routing. -- Multicast: Segment routing cannot cover the use case. The multicast service should be removed. Then network is only for IPv6 unicast routing. Then I do not think the debates on the draft should not be simply blamed on the choice between IPv6 or MPLS. I wonder how many operators perfers the designed core network for IPv6 segment routing and whether it is necessary to introduce complex IPv6 segment routing fowarding for the limited scenarios.
Regards, Zhenbin(Robin) > Hi! > > This message officially starts the call for adoption for > draft-martin-spring-segment-routing-ipv6-use-cases. > > Please indicate your position about adopting this use cases draft by > end-of-day on March 27, 2014. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-martin-spring-segment-routing-ipv6-us > e-ca ses > > Thanks! >From section 2.5: _______________________________________________ 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
