Hi, > 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.
No, something that today can do the same as SR-MPLS but over IPv6, with lots of space for future expansion, is something I like to see. Using IPv6 instead of MPLS already gives the benefit of unifying transport technologies. I'm not waiting for something feature packed with so many knobs and "special" (read: header insertion, bit shifting etc) that it will be much harder to work with. > 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. That "without any new functionality" isn't exactly true either… > Would it make sense ? If those data plane and control plane drafts provide an easier way to do those things? Most definitely yes. It's the measuring progress by how many features and "cool" things are added that is a problem here. Progress also include making technology easier to manage, easier to understand, easier to debug, more accessible to average network engineers. Antoine de Saint Exupéry was right: “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” Cheers, Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
