+1 srihari…
On 25/05/20, 10:13 PM spring on behalf of Andrew Alston from [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> said > [External Email. Be cautious of content] I think a better question would be – not if hats are on or off – but which hat – the employee of a vendor hat? The WG chair hat? The CoC hat? The “In personal capacity” hat? Like Ron and others – I’m kinda curious here Andrew From: spring <[email protected]> on behalf of Ron Bonica <[email protected]> Date: Monday, 25 May 2020 at 18:51 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, 6man <[email protected]>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[email protected]>, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ole, When commenting on list, could you indicate whether hats are on or off? Ron Juniper Business Use Only -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 6:31 AM To: Sander Steffann <[email protected]> Cc: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>; Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 6man <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WKwYnERKyJMlVytSsogP5BgL6Z9jJxS7Tznh8McM2BLglnrMEh9WOgLOtRtd_Qs$>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
