On 04/05/2017 21:20, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
On 5/2/17, 12:57 PM, "Stewart Bryant" <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> wrote:
Stewart:
Hi! How are you?
Thanks for the detailed review!
A significant part of the justification seems to evolve around the
inability of MPLS to function in an IPv6 only network.
It seems to me that this statement summarizes many of the concerns you listed
as Major in the review. I can see why it seems like the justification is:
“because MPLS doesn’t work, then we have to do IPv6.” – but I think that even
if a complete solution exists (for an MPLS deployment on an IPv6-only network),
some operators would still make the design choice of preferring an IPv6-only
deployment.
I think that it would be good for the authors to refocus the justification away
from “because X doesn’t work”. Would that address this part of your concerns?
Thanks!
Alvaro.
Hi Alvaro,
That would be a step in the right direction particularly if Carlos' OPS
comments were also addressed.
Without going back over the detail, I seem to remember I had a question
as to how the homenet case worked given that SR needs topology info, and
homenet has chosen a DV protocol.
I also had a concerns about the validity of the scaling justification,
and I think there are issues of trust that need to be discussed.
Both of those may be addressable simply by providing more detail as
Carlos suggests.
Alternatively maybe it would be better to have a single use case:
Operators that wish to deploy SR without an MPLS control plane, although
as I note, you don't need an MPLS control plane to make MPLS SR work.
- Stewart
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
