> On 25 May 2020, at 17:49, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> 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: 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
