Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

-Original Message----- From: David Allan I Date: Thursday, 12 December 2019 at 22:40 To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" , "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" , "Joel M. Halpern" , "spring@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Hi Pablo Lo

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Hi Pablo Looking over the benefits list, Irrespective of any other merits, I'd actually suspect that 1.3/example 2 is kind of a specious benefit. My reasoning is if fragmentation has occurred, and the NSH has been replicated in all fragments and needs to be removed from each fragment by the

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Hi I do not quite get the same warm and fuzzy from the definition when thinking about multicast….. The mapping of the binding SID to local policy is still IMO per path state. For a simple p2p path it is pretty straightforward as the mapping can be to a common policy abstraction at every node

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Would not the existence of SRLB’s be an existence proof of per-path state at transit nodes in the SPRING architecture? Dave From: spring On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 7:48 AM To: Voyer, Daniel ; Zafar Ali (zali) ; Rob Shakir ; Michael McBride Cc:

[spring] draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-framework-00

Hi A new draft has been posted to PIM. This is a revision of an older draft: draft-allan-spring-mpls-mcast. The draft describes an approach to SR-MPLS multicast using the native MPLS dataplane. Comments and questions are very welcome Dave & co-authors

Re: [spring] [mpls] redux: Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

You’re right, my issue was the semantics of the GAL being that of a termination and not a shim…. Would be strange to change that such that the stack could continue after it. Dave From: John E Drake [mailto:jdr...@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 12:02 PM To: David Allan I

Re: [spring] [mpls] redux: Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Would not the concept of (EOS set) Get a bit strange? We are simply swapping one reserved label for another… Dave From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John E Drake Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 8:00 PM To: Ext - ruediger.g...@telekom.de ;

Re: [spring] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?

I’d rephrase this to be a bit more solution agnostic…. 1. Is E2E PM required. (and this can only be achieved with pairwise measurement points). 2. Are transit measurement points required as well….. BTW transmit measurement points without e2e measurement points strikes me as

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

So your point would be that this does not require a special label to achieve this. Nor do we need a redesign of stack processing at every node in the network to enable this functionality. Cheers Dave From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura Sent: Thursday,