Ole,
When commenting on list, could you indicate whether hats are on or off?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: otr...@employees.org <otr...@employees.org>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 6:31 AM
To: Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>;
spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar
(ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>
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
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
