Hi Joel and WG, > Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for > compressing SRv6 information?
Yes, we should pick up and standardize a single solution for SRv6 compression. Interoperability is one of important factors for operators. Multi-options may prevent interoperability. Regards, Shunsuke On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 3:52 AM Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> 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
