Ron, > SRv6 is not nearly so close to standardization as some would claim. If it > were, last week’s heated email exchanges would not have occurred
It’s not true. All discussions didn’t attribute to SRH encap itself. > Some customers have identified a need that SRv6+ satisfies and SRv6 does not As one of your customers, I never claim that thing. --satoru 2019/09/10 22:30、Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>のメール: > Jim, > > Please accept this comment in the spirit which it is intended, between two > old friends. > > It doesn’t matter if there are a million existing SRv6 deployments.. The > following is undeniable: > > SRv6 is not nearly so close to standardization as some would claim. If it > were, last week’s heated email exchanges would not have occurred > Some customers have identified a need that SRv6+ satisfies and SRv6 does not > > So, why would anyone want to suppress the new work. I have heard the > following arguments: > > New work would overtax the WG > A new solution would confuse the market place > > The first argument is dubious. We are talking about a few very short > documents that are careful never to stray from IPv6 orthodoxy. As always, > participation is voluntary. > > The second argument is downright suspicious. Network operators are > intelligent people who are not easily confused. > > The marketplace doesn’t need to be protected from new solutions. Those who > claim that it does may want to explain why. > > Ron > > > Juniper Business Use Only > From: James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 8:59 AM > To: Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl>; Zafar Ali (zali) <z...@cisco.com> > Cc: Rob Shakir <ro...@google.com>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; SPRING > WG List <spring@ietf.org>; Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; Andrew > Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> > Subject: RE: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG > (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) > > I don’t think anyone is trying to make themselves look superior. Presumably > the IETF wants to build technologies that are actually deployed in real > networks – it is clear that there are multiple publicly announced SRv6 > deployments (I can think of at least 5) and from what I can see from the > numerous email threads there are several operators stating that SRv6 > satisfies their needs (and this is based on real deployment knowledge not > theoretical technical purity) and no other additional encapsulation > technique is necessary. > > My .2c > > Jim > > From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Sander Steffann > Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2019 1:22 PM > To: Zafar Ali (zali) <z...@cisco.com> > Cc: Rob Shakir <ro...@google.com>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; SPRING > WG List <spring@ietf.org>; Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; Andrew > Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> > Subject: Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG > (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) > > > [ZA] Please refer to section 3 of SRv6 deployment draft, > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-01#section-3. > It provides some details on the Significant industry collaboration that led > to SRv6 standardization. SRv6 standardization went through the rigorous IETF > process (some may say much more rigorous than typically done at IETF). > > Throwing massive resources at something, sending many emails and creating > many tickets don't represent "significant industry collaboration". They can > equally represent ratholing, endless discussions and massive disagreement. > > Stop trying to make yourself look superior. That has no place in the IETF. > Statement like that are pathetic in my view. Please focus on technical > excellence instead. > > Cheers, > Sander > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
