Hello, Knowing the importance of compressed SID for SRv6, it is imperative for the industry to have a single standardized solution. In this context, it would be wise for the IETF to leverage on what has been previously achieved by other WGs facing a similar situation, e.g. NV03 when selecting the GENEVE solution.
Many Thanks, -- Brd From: spring <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 10:54 AM To: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 compression I agree with Wim's statement that the precedent in NVO3 *could* apply here too: pick one solution as Standard's track RFC, and once it is done, the others might be documented as Informational RFCs if they have implementations. That would help the industry to move forward. Thanks. Jorge From: spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 9:11 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [spring] SRv6 compression Given the design team accomplished the work on providing requirements and analysis to compress an SRv6 SID list, I would recommend we pick 1 solution similar to what was done in NVO3 (when we discussed GENEVE, GUE, GPE, etc) given this has to be implemented in HW.. I hope we can conclude on this asap and move forward on this topic
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
