[spring] What's the colour of the hat (was: Re: CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH)

[[e-mail]]

Ron,

[changed subject, as this seems of little relevance]

> So that I will know whether I am allowed to reply.

Wearing a chair's hat has never stopped anyone from replying before.

For formal 6man communication Bob and I generally sign with "Best regards, Bob and Ole, 6man co-chairs".
Unless that signature is there you can assume I post as an individual.

> 
> Juniper Business Use Only

The slight hostility I detect in your replies, I suspect has more to do with the particular employer hat I also wear as opposed to the chair hat.

Ole


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Troan <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:22 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Sander Steffann <[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk <[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]
> 
> 
>> On 25 May 2020, at 17:49, Ron Bonica <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Ole,
>> 
>> When commenting on list, could you indicate whether hats are on or off?
> 
> And that is important to you for this particular message because?
> 
>> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> Ole
> 
>> -----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