Hi,
Firstly, I would like to thank the design team for their outstanding work.
> Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for
compressing SRv6 information?
Yes.
From the operator's point of view, we are always looking for quick
implementation and interoperability across multiple vendors. For this
reason, we prefer one data plane under the SRv6 umbrella.
Regards,
Takuya
On 2021/08/05 3:52, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The SPRING Working Group Chairs thank the design team for their
efforts on the requirements and analysis drafts. The question of how
the working group wants to progress that part of the work will be the
topic for a separate email a bit later.
Right now, we are hearing the discussion about how many solutions, and
the perspectives being expressed. While the topic was well-raised,
the discussion to date has not been structured in a way that makes
clear to everyone what the purpose is. In particular, the chairs have
decided to re-ask the question. We ask that even those who have
responded in the discussion respond to this thread. Preferably with
both what their opinion is and an explanation of why.
The question we are asking you to comment on is:
Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for
compressing SRv6 information?
Please speak up. We are looking to collect responses until close of
business PDT on 20-August-2021.
Thank you,
Joel, Jim, and Bruno
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring