My opinion clearly is: The WG should standardize ONE solution for SRv6
header compression, and it should follow to results of the DT.
Reason: As an operator I could theoretically ignore the effort vendors
have for implementing solution that I do not care for.
In reality however that usually does takes critical ressources away from
implementing the technology that I need.
The effect is much later interoperability.
Best regards,
Martin
Am 04.08.21 um 20:52 schrieb Joel M. Halpern:
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
