From my side,

With or without the IETF – I will continue to use CRH and we will continue to 
make product choices based on it.  CRH is not SRv6 – it is, and we have stated 
this before, a building block for many things.

In our case – the ability to steer traffic is what drives a lot of what we do, 
but at the same time – the destination option SID for 16/32 bit which is an 
arbitrary number we can tie to functional behavior on the server side – is 
useful.

I also point out that as I said time and again, we could not wait for the IETF, 
and we have invested significantly in CRH development into various products – 
and the rejection of CRH by the IETF – by a DT inside SPRING when the document 
is actually in 6man and is not srv6 – will simply lead to a case of us making 
large purchasing decisions on the vendors that choose to support what would be 
a proprietary protocol.  So – rather than contributing to open standards the 
IETF by choosing one option – an option favored in the DT report – where 5 
outta 7 members were actually authors or directly related to CSID – the IETF 
will be contributing towards what will become a proprietary protocol – either 
on IANA allocated code points, experimental code points or squatted code points 
– either way – CRH will continue and we will base our millions a year in 
purchasing partially on this factor (especially considering the significant 
amount of development resource that has been put into this – and yes – people 
will say – why did you put the resources into it – well – CRH has been stable 
in RFC since before CSID existed – and development cannot stop because of 
inertia in the IETF)

CRH is functional – in production – and deployed – and caters for use cases 
simply not covered by CSID – because they have entirely different purposes.  
CSID was built to compress SRv6 – CRH is a building block for whatever the hell 
you want it to be.  To choose one over the other disregards this entirely.

Hence, I say this again, I am supportive of moving multiple options forward 
here – one within spring, and the other in 6man where it currently resides, to 
cater for disparate use cases.

Thanks

Andrew


From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Qiuyuanxiang
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 1:01 PM
To: li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) 
<wim.henderi...@nokia.com>; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 compression

Agree.

As a vendor, we do hope to pick one solution to be standardized, to facilitate 
the network deployment.
Also, since the CSID has been implemented by many vendors, I will suggest to 
adopt CSID.


Best Regards,
Yuanxiang Qiu


发件人: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 
li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com<mailto:li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com>
发送时间: 2021年7月31日 16:38
收件人: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) 
<wim.henderi...@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderi...@nokia.com>>; 
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
主题: Re: [spring] SRv6 compression

Agree. Picking 1 solution to satisfy our requirements will benefit both the 
vendors and the operators.

Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
________________________________
li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com<mailto:li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com>

From: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)<mailto:wim.henderi...@nokia.com>
Date: 2021-07-27 15:11
To: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息,仅限于发送给上面地址中列出
的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用(包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、
或散发)本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件,请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本
邮件!
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, 
which is
intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use 
of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total 
or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify 
the sender
by phone or email immediately and delete it!
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to