Ron, [changed subject, as this seems of little relevance]
> So that I will know whether I am allowed to reply. Wearing a chair's hat has never stopped anyone from replying before. For formal 6man communication Bob and I generally sign with "Best regards, Bob and Ole, 6man co-chairs". Unless that signature is there you can assume I post as an individual. > > Juniper Business Use Only The slight hostility I detect in your replies, I suspect has more to do with the particular employer hat I also wear as opposed to the chair hat. Ole > -----Original Message----- > From: Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org> > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:22 PM > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> > Cc: Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.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] > > >> 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
