Sander,
On 26/05/2020, 21:48, "Sander Steffann" <san...@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi,
> WH> what you are saying I only want a CRH solution and you are not open
to anything else, because the SIDs are not in the right place.
No, that is not what I said. Please stop twisting my words. I want to steer
a packet without needing to encapsulate it. Why is that so hard to understand?
SRH does that using IPv6 addresses, CRH does that using shorter
identifiers. Both have their use cases. I'm not just talking about SRv6 and
SRm6. I'm talking about CRH as a building block that can be used by many future
protocols.
WH> When we defined RFC8663, we could have done what you said, but we didn’t
and the reason is simple. New networking capabilities we have defined so far,
are supported naturally, like SFC, OAM, VPN, G-SID/L-SID, etc. With your
approach we will reinvent the wheel for these things and we have to define a
new framework to support them. So far nothing has been identified that cannot
be supported with RFC8663.
> So there is no point in further discussions. My position remains that
RFC8663 is a valid alternative and is available; I am against WG adoption of
CRH.
Your arguments don't make any sense...
WH> Make sense to me though.
Sander
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
