Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

[Boris Hassanov <[e-mail]>]

 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]> 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]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring