Zafar,
Your memory is selective. In the SPRING session, many people argued that “SRv6
was nearly complete and we didn’t need another solution”. But I don’t remember
anybody arguing against the technical merits of SRv6+.
If you can make a technical argument against SRv6+, I encourage you to do so. I
look forward to a gentlemanly exchange.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Zafar Ali (zali) <z...@cisco.com>
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 12:53 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>;
Rob Shakir <ro...@google.com>; SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>; 6...@ietf.org
Cc: Zafar Ali (zali) <z...@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.
<snip>
>SRv6+ is definitely a better proposal in terms
> 1.Adherence to IPv6 Architecture
> 2.Efficient encoding
> 3.Operational simplicity
>
> There hasn't been a single mail denying the above advantages of SRv6+
This is absolutely false!
Have you forgotten the very strong arguments against it at the Spring session
in Montreal and the various emails on the list that echoed them 😉
Not to mention comments from Robert R
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/6bdX_gb47uFYnd6ytwFLPYxXCYo).
Yes, indeed Ron presented the proposal to every workgroup possible in Montreal,
only to find no interest from anyone.
I would advise you to read that silence differently. 😉
<snip>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
