Dear Sander, Because many problems are identified in the current work >
Please kindly enumerate technical problems which got identified. It will be actually very helpful list. It's not needs/requirements, it's mostly the lack of a KISS approach > Not all vendors are falling into the last "S" category Please elaborate about the real deployment. Where was it deployed? In what > kind of networks? On what scale? For which use cases? > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-01 I don't like the design of the current solution, and you seem to suggest > that I have to stall work on what I would like until you have what you > would like *. That doesn't work for me. No one is stating that. It is your network and you can deploy and develop anything you like. But IETF mission is to make sure you have interoperable services and so far for all SRv6+ related draft this is all single vendor. Sorry but linux code does not count. So do you think that IETF should support and work on single vendor's wall garden now ? Very interesting .... I think Juniper reps are actually taking a very risky path ... In fact if IETF would accept the work - even as experimental - they can only deploy it in single Juniper shops. So those customers with dual or multi vendor will have no choice but get rid of Juniper gear. Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
