Ole,
OK, the I can reply, contributor to contributor.
Two reasonable people can argue about complexity metrics. Sometimes, these
arguments make sense.
Sometimes, metrics aren't required. By any measure, my bicycle is a more simple
machine than my car.
However, I think that it is unfair to say that:
- All discussion of simplicity is marketing
- Any discussion of simplicity visa vis source routing is an oxymoron.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: otr...@employees.org <otr...@employees.org>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:41 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org
Subject: What's the colour of the hat (was: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the
SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Ron,
[changed subject, as this seems of little relevance]
> So that I will know whether I am allowed to reply.
Wearing a chair's hat has never stopped anyone from replying before.
For formal 6man communication Bob and I generally sign with "Best regards, Bob
and Ole, 6man co-chairs".
Unless that signature is there you can assume I post as an individual.
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
The slight hostility I detect in your replies, I suspect has more to do with
the particular employer hat I also wear as opposed to the chair hat.
Ole
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:22 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
> Cc: Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>;
> spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar
> (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in
> CRH
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
>> On 25 May 2020, at 17:49, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ole,
>>
>> When commenting on list, could you indicate whether hats are on or off?
>
> And that is important to you for this particular message because?
>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> Ole
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: otr...@employees.org <otr...@employees.org>
>> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 6:31 AM
>> To: Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl>
>> Cc: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>;
>> spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar
>> (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>
>> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in
>> CRH
>>
>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>>
>>
>> Sander,
>>
>>>> Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to
>>>> eliminate any other vendor or any other solution to solve the problem at
>>>> hand rather then rational list of requirements.
>>>
>>> My main customer (an ISP in NL) would fit exactly in the list that Ron
>>> sent. They want a simple solution that they can understand and manage, that
>>> works over IPv6. Whether the path will include many nodes (>8) is not known
>>> at this point, but they want something that can support it in the future.
>>>
>>> So the list of requirements isn't that strange.
>>
>> That CRH is simple is a bit like claiming that MPLS is simple just because
>> the header has few fields.
>> I think you would be hard pressed to substantiate that any solution here is
>> particularly simpler than any other. But you are welcome to try.
>>
>> Everyone claims to want a simple solution, funnily enough the end result is
>> usually the opposite. The words "simple" and "source routing" are oxymorons.
>> Let's leave the marketing out of this.
>>
>> Ole
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
