[spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

Ron,



> There hasn't been a single mail denying the above advantages of SRv6+



Among many comments from many operators and vendors, please see,

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/wFDK_Be7lEt4s191m61WdUOEzL4



We must remind you that the original questions from the Spring chair were NOT on debating the solution.



Furthermore, during Spring WG meeting, Bob (6man chair), said:

[Bob Hinden] As 6man co-chair, would like to understand whether SPRING is interested in this (CRH) work. A clear message would be useful to ensure that 6man spends time usefully [https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-105-spring]



  *   You ignored the chair’s direction.
  *   You added 6man WG for some unknown reasons.



Since you added 6man to this Spring discussion on the “requirements”, among many other things, the two WGs witnessed:



  *   Spring chairs and AD were repeatedly flamed. They had to defend [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ZFm_bQP1-C2f9xJuXtvEd9mLoxU]
  *   6man AD/ chairs had to defend, e.g., https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zfr-dCuSHSJRjE2NkJbfjuWoCi4.
  *   An atmosphere that the Spring and 6man are disconnected was created.
  *   Heated discussions (that are not on the table).
  *   Etc.



Not to mention, many lost their sleep, long weekend, hair, deadlines; gained blood pressure/ weight, etc. ;-)



Unfortunately, there is a trend. The same has been tried against SRv6, again and again.



  *   Without success.
  *   Huawei has deployed.
  *   Cisco has deployed.
  *   Several operators have reported significant commercial traffic at linerate forwarding.
  *   Linux and FD.IO open-source stacks are available and have been used in deployments.
  *   Several interoperability tests have been reported.
  *   Numerous SP’s are clearly asking SRv6 in RFP, and the deployment prospect in 2020 and 2021 is significant.



In summary,



Can you please follow the directions set by the chairs and stop creating email threads?

This is not how we are supposed to promote technologies at IETF.



Thanks



Regards ... Zafar



From: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:34 AM
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>, Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>, Rob Shakir <[e-mail]>, SPRING WG List <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

Zafar,

Your memory is selective. In the SPRING session, many people argued that “SRv6 was nearly complete and we didn’t need another solution”. But I don’t remember anybody arguing against the technical merits of SRv6+.

If you can make a technical argument against SRv6+, I encourage you to do so. I look forward to a gentlemanly exchange.

                                                                                                         Ron





Juniper Business Use Only
From: Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 12:53 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; Rob Shakir <[e-mail]>; SPRING WG List <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

<snip>
>SRv6+ is definitely a better proposal in terms
>  1.Adherence to IPv6 Architecture
>  2.Efficient encoding
>  3.Operational simplicity
>
>   There hasn't been a single mail denying the above advantages of SRv6+

This is absolutely false!

Have you forgotten the very strong arguments against it at the Spring session in Montreal and the various emails on the list that echoed them 😉
Not to mention comments from Robert R (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/6bdX_gb47uFYnd6ytwFLPYxXCYo)

Yes, indeed Ron presented the proposal to every workgroup possible in Montreal, only to find no interest from anyone.
I would advise you to read that silence differently. 😉

<snip>