Subject: RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

From: wangyali <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 06:47:47 +0000

Hi 6man,

As far as I know, there are several compression solutions proposed. I think it's better to have a architecture described, to analyses the use cases, and see if several compression solution can coexist. Otherwise, we can compare pros and cons, and choose the best for the industry. IMHO, it's just not the right timing to adopt this work.

Best regards,
Yali

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 09:07:36 +0000

From: ipv6 <[email-masked]> on behalf of wangyali <[email-masked]>
Sent: 28 May 2020 07:47

Hi 6man,

<tp>
Some SDOs work that way and eventually come up with a specification.
The IETF is different in my experience.  Got a good idea?  Peer review it, publish it.  The market will ultimately decide if it is worth adopting.  The IETF has often offered this or that and let others make the choice - look for example at the many technologies available to introduce an IPv6 network to a pre-existing network.  This is no different in approach.  A sound idea for the market to look at.
Tom Petch

Best regards,
Yali

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------