> On May 5, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 04/05/2017 21:20, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: >> On 5/2/17, 12:57 PM, "Stewart Bryant" <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Stewart: >> >> Hi! How are you? >> >> Thanks for the detailed review! >> >>> A significant part of the justification seems to evolve around the >>> inability of MPLS to function in an IPv6 only network. >> It seems to me that this statement summarizes many of the concerns you listed as Major in the review. I can see why it seems like the justification is: “because MPLS doesn’t work, then we have to do IPv6.” – but I think that even if a complete solution exists (for an MPLS deployment on an IPv6-only network), some operators would still make the design choice of preferring an IPv6-only deployment. >> >> I think that it would be good for the authors to refocus the justification away from “because X doesn’t work”. Would that address this part of your concerns? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Alvaro. >> > > Hi Alvaro, > > That would be a step in the right direction particularly if Carlos' OPS comments were also addressed. > > Without going back over the detail, I seem to remember I had a question as to how the homenet case worked given that SR needs topology info, and homenet has chosen a DV protocol. HNCP performs topology discovery and prefix assignment within the home network, independent of the routing protocol being used. - Mark > > I also had a concerns about the validity of the scaling justification, and I think there are issues of trust that need to be discussed. > > Both of those may be addressable simply by providing more detail as Carlos suggests. > > Alternatively maybe it would be better to have a single use case: Operators that wish to deploy SR without an MPLS control plane, although as I note, you don't need an MPLS control plane to make MPLS SR work. > > - Stewart >