Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ron,

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.

Btw please observe that most if not all of the below "Does not want" are
optional in any solution. If some one "Does not want" then someone just
does not enable them.

Rgs,
R.

PS.  Would you not buy a phone which supports optional "haptic touch" just
because you would never master how to use it or would you buy it anyway
and simply not enable it while enjoy 99 other useful features ?


On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 5:32 AM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ketan,
>
> Please consider an operator who:
>
> - Wants a way to steer IPv6 packets through a specified path that includes
> many nodes (>8)
> - Does not want any of the following:
>         - A new VPN encapsulation technique
>         - A new service function chaining technique
>         - Network programming
>         - MPLS and uSID
>         - To encoding instructions in IPv6 addresses.
>
> These operators want a compact routing header, nothing more.
>
>
>  Ron
>