On 22/5/20 02:20, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
Hi Joel,
I'll point you to RFC7855, RFC8355 and RFC8402 that cover both the data-planes
for Spring. Then the RFC8354 which is focussed on SRv6. All this body of work
along with a whole lot of discussion and brainstorming happening in the Spring
WG provided the architecture, use-cases, applicability and requirements for SRH
(RFC8754).
It may be so that many people in 6man focussed on only the IPv6 specific
aspects as is their design expertise. But there were others (in 6man, Spring
and other WGs) that were able to look at the solution in a holistic manner
thanks to the body of work behind it.
Net-PGM builds on top of RFC8402 and RFC8754.
To give a real world analogy, let us understand what kind of a car we are
trying to build (to carry goods/passengers or both and how much/many, what
terrain it is meant for, what weather/environment conditions, how much
speed/performance/fuel efficiency parameters required, etc.) before we start
designing tyres for it.
Continuing with your analogy, it would seem to me that in the process,
Net-PGM decided to break the roads and ditch traffic rules so that their
"new" vehicle could run faster, while ignoring that other folks and
vehicles need those very same roads to be safe and reliable.
P.S.: Sorry, I couldn't help it.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
