Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

[Takuya Miyasaka <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Firstly, I would like to thank the design team for their outstanding work.

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

 From the operator's point of view, we are always looking for quick 
implementation and interoperability across multiple vendors. For this 
reason, we prefer one data plane under the SRv6 umbrella.

Regards,
Takuya

On 2021/08/05 3:52, Joel M. Halpern 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