RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Ole,

When commenting on list, could you indicate whether hats are on or off?

                    Ron



Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 6:31 AM
To: Sander Steffann <[e-mail]>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 6man <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>
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