Re: [spring] Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]

Hi Nick,

> CRH looks interesting from a technical point of view.

Can you enumerate what you find interesting in it ?

For me the fundamental drawback of MPLS or SR-MPLS is requirement mapping.
CRH falls in the same bucket - requires yet one more mapping abstraction.

I have proven with the referenced IP-TE + NP document that you can do path
engineering without any mapping. In fact even without any change to IPv6
protocol.

So what are those technical merits - 16 or 32 bit SIDs ? One size fit all
again ? What is the delta against SR-MPLS technically speaking ? Note that
nothing prevents you to run MPLS over IP if that is the issue.

Best,
R.

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

> Zafar Ali (zali) wrote on 15/05/2020 13:53:
> > It is clear to all that the current draft and adoption request is an
> > attempt to circumvent the standard practice.
>
> Zafar,
>
> Speaking as an unaffiliated operator who runs kit from plenty of
> vendors, CRH looks interesting from a technical point of view.
>
> Juniper seems to be claiming running code, so it would be a more
> productive use of working group time if we concentrated on rough
> consensus on the technical merits rather than getting side-tracked with
> procedural distractions.
>
> Nick
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>