Hi,
I support the adoption of draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression
the draft is compliant with the RFC 8986 and adds two new flavors to the
End behavior
with my research team, I've been working on the design and
implementation of the SRv6 network programming model (RFC 8986) on
Hi,
I support this document for WG adoption, based on the results of the analysis
draft.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: spring on behalf of James Guichard
Date: Friday, October 1, 2021 at 4:05 PM
To: SPRING WG
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption call for
If we take a look at the summary table in slide 17 in the DT
presentation at last IETF
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-spring-srcomp-design-team-update-00
wecan see that CSID is the only column with *all blocks dark green*.
Thanks
Ahmed
On 10/6/21 9:06 AM,
Hi Francois,
thank you for the clarification. It is still not clear how a node selects
which flavor of CSID to use on the next compressed CSID that may happen
also be in the next CSID container. As I understand it, a CSID container
must use the same flavor of compression but CSID containers with
Ahmed,
I don't recall the DT recommending the CSID. In fact, the word "recommend" does
not appear anywhere in the analysis document.
As a member of the DT, I don't recommend CSID.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From:
Orange Restricted
-Original Message-
From: IETF Secretariat
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:15 PM
To: draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compress...@ietf.org
Cc: ipr-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: IPR Disclosure Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to
Hi Greg,
A node that supports this draft in its entirety can instantiate SRv6 SIDs
(e.g., End and End.X SIDs) with any of the three C-SID flavors.
In particular, a node can instantiate multiple SRv6 SIDs bound to different
C-SID flavors, possibly with different C-SID lengths. It can also
I strongly object to the adoption of the draft.
There are 3 different flavors defined in the draft
and all three flavors have significant difference in
the forwarding plane behaviours.
I would prefer the discussion on whether WG wants to work on
all these flavors or only one of them to
precede
I support the WG adoption of the CSID draft.
I understand that CSID draft defines multiple SRv6 behaviors, but they are
based on a single SRv6 data plane solution.
Kind regards,
Antonio Cianfrani
Il giorno mer 6 ott 2021 alle ore 06:30 Darren Dukes (ddukes) ha scritto:
> I support the WG
