Hi,
We have submitted a revised version of our draft addressing the
comments we got in Singapore:
- Added some statements about which model from draft-ietf-dmm-
deployment-models our solution follows (addressing a comment received
from Sri).
- Added some text relating to draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-m
Hi Sri,
Apologies for the delayed reaction. We were busy with the last minute
I-D submission.
Regarding the changes that went into -08, this is my summary:
- Drastic shortening of the document, aiming at reducing its complexity
and length. We have shortened from ~45 pages to ~15 pages.
- Simpli
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
wrote:
> Tom,
>
>
>
> Re: your comment on EH insertion.
>
>
>
> This point is not applicable; a new version of srv6-mobile-uplane
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-01) is
>
> published making SRv6 encapsulat
Tom,
Re: your comment on EH insertion.
This point is not applicable; a new version of srv6-mobile-uplane
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-01) is
published making SRv6 encapsulation the default.
Thanks,
Pablo
From: dmm on behalf of Satoru Matsushima
Date: Tuesda
Hello Tom,
>> A Big progress is that the draft supports interworking with GTP over IPv6 in
>> addition to GTP over IPv4.
>> And we have made change SRv6 function to IPv6 encapsulation with SRH instead
>> of SRH insertion by default.
>>
>
> Hi Satoru,
>
> If there are no intermediate hops od SID
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Satoru Matsushima
wrote:
> Dear folks,
>
> A new revision of SRv6 Mobile User Plane draft has been submitted to IETF.
>
> I’d present brief summary of the updates, but the agenda seems already full
> so that it is uncertain I can do that.
>
> So let me share the sum
