On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:08 AM Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Folks, > > > > We have explored many facets of SRv6 and SRv6, sometime passionately. I think > that this exploration is a good thing. In the words of Tolkien, “All who > wander are not lost.” > > > > But it may be time to refocus on the following: > > > > For many operators, SRv6 is not deployable unless the problem of header > length is addressed > Many objections the uSID proposal remain unanswered > SRv6+ offers an alternative solution > > > > Given these three facts, I think that it would be a mistake to discontinue > work on SRv6+. > + 1
I'd suggest a fourth fact. The packet format of SRv6+ is much simpler than SRv6 and the protocol works better with existing mechanisms and protocols of IPv6 like Destination and HBH options, as well as AH. It doesn't depend on extension header insertion and there's no need to have multiple routing headers in the same packet. Tom > > > > Ron > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
