Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

["Luc-Fabrice Ndifor Ngwa [ MTN Cameroon ]" <[e-mail]>]

+ 1

One solution will be the best for any operator and the industry, so suggest to move forward with one solution rather than spending more time again to explore several options (this has already taken long)
Since the CSID satisfies all the requirements, it will be great if we can have CSID standardized.



​Warm regards,
Luc-Fabrice
 
Ndifor
Specialist - IP Access and Data center
[e-mail]
T [phone]
Head Office: 360, Rue Drouot
​P.O. Box 15 574 Douala, Cameroon
T [phone]
 | mtn.cm
This email is confidential. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify ​the ​​sender immediately by 
​reply email and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it ​or use it for any purpose or disclose its content 
​to any other person as to do so could be a breach of ​confidentiality.
​
 Please be informed that no employee or agent is authorized to conclude any legally binding agreement ​on behalf of MTN Cameroon
​via email. This can be only done if the email is confirmed explicitly in writing ​by an MTN Cameroon authorized officer. In no event 
​will this email or its content be construed as a written ​approval.
From: spring <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Luis M. Contreras
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 7:07 PM
To: Boris Hassanov <bhassanov=[e-mail]>
Cc: SPRING WG List <[e-mail]>; Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

+1

Best regards

Luis


El vie., 6 ago. 2021 19:12, Boris Hassanov <bhassanov=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> escribió:
Hi Joel and all,

Please see my answer and comments below.

>Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for compressing SRv6 information?

Yes, we should pick up one data plane SRv6 compression mechanism. Even if It will be not an easy choice.

I have been on vendors side for a while  but now saying from operator perspective: we need one standardized solution because we do not want to stuck with just one vendor and do not want to solve an interop nightmare between 2 or 3  different mechanisms from different vendors by ourselves in the nearest future.

With all respect for the all vendors who invested much in particular technology.

SY,
Boris




On Wednesday, August 4, 2021, 09:52:48 PM GMT+3, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring