Hi Sander, No. And that is why I want SRv6+ to move forward, to avoid getting trapped > in the SRv6 walled garden. >
The way IETF works (at least in vast majority of WGs) is that if you do not like a specific element of a solution or if something is missing from any solution during WG process - you contribute to it to either fix it or to make sure the WG product is the best possible. So nothing prevented you for all the years IETF has been dealing with SRv6 process to take an active part in its standardization. Asking for adoption of solution which brings nothing new to already shipping solution of SR-MPLS when it would travel over IPv4 or IPv6 is at best counterproductive. It is like now you would be asking to adopt some individual drafts which woke up and defined new data plane and new control plane for services you are running in your network - and call those MPLS+, L2VPN+, L3VPN+ and mVPN+ without any new functionality. Would it make sense ? Kind regards, Robert
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
